I seem to have this problem. They said Twilight Princess has about 40 hours of play but I beaten it in 20. Whenever they have a set number of hours to a game, I seem to beat it in half. This dosent mean the games are bad.(Twilight Princess was epic) Anyone else have this sort of problem?

Stop trying to brag.

I don't beat games fast in the same way you do. The only way I beat games fast is if I play for many hours a day. So I beat games in a very small amount of days, rather than the actual time limit like you.

You get what I'm sayin'?

It really depends on the game. I tend to be a completist, which makes me pretty slow. However, some games (usually action games) I'll run through to get a feel for them because I know I'll play it again. Halo 3 and Crackdown are more recent examples of that. I blazed through both of those pretty quickly, but then I went back to being a completist (collecting skulls and such in Halo 3, or finding orbs in Crackdown).

I don't replay games (at least not for several years after my first run-through) so I tend to be slow when I play. I'm also incredibly anal about sidequests and discovering every little thing I can about pretty much everything I play. If anything, I don't complete games fast enough - but on the other hand, I sure do get my money's worth out of them.

Dragonmaw:
Stop trying to brag.

I figured someone would say that. Im not bragging.

I definitely don't replay games, but a finding it takes longer and longer for me to beat games anymore. There are certainly exceptions, as Heavenly Sword took me about 4 hours to complete and I did beat Bioshock the first week that I owned it. Still, a 10-12 hour game may take me a few weeks to beat and I am not sure if my attention span just isn't long enough anymore or if there are simply too many games out there to play now a days.

I have to admit, my eyes insist the title of this thread says something it doesn't actually say. Too much late night TV I guess.

Anyway, I do not suffer from this problem. I do find that games are getting a lot shorter these days, but I often take longer than most, perhaps out of some miserly desire to squeeze every last penny of enjoyment out of them.

I play through games to get as much content as possible and see every sidequest, and even still I end up beating games much more quickly than advertised.

I'm usually slowly playing through at least five games on several consoles and PC at a given time (I'm not super hardcore amazing gamer, I just buy a lot more games than I have time to play through) and when I'm going to "seriously" play through a new game I like to be in the right mood to get the best experience I can out of it. I think my "total hours" to play through Bioshock was about average, but it took me a week or two to get through it because I only played through one area, always in its entirety, per night.

If I have some reason to play through a game quickly, it's no problem, but overall I beat games pretty slowly.

The only games which tend to really take me longer are RPGs. It took me 63 or so hours to beat FF12 and this was with every party member at level 53 and only doing a handful of hunts. Having said that, I am only a completionist when it comes to Platforming games. I remember finishing Voodoo Vince for the XBOX with every single item collected, some which literally took me 50 tries to get/find, only to discover it made no difference with the plot of the game.

When I completed Metroid Prime a few weeks back, I only got the middle ending, not the best ending. Fortunately, as I did with Bioshock, I went to Youtube and got the alternate endings. There isnt enough time for me to play through some games in order to see multiple endings. Unless its Kotor where you actually have enough content to justify 2 play-throughs.

You can beat a game too fast? Wow. I never knew that.

Zera:
They said Twilight Princess has about 40 hours of play but I beaten it in 20.

Are you the sort of person that would finish Oblivion in 10 hours, because thats all it takes to get through the main quest?

I tend to find games take me longer than "advertised" to get through, but then again I only get to play games for a couple hours a week, so every time I get back into a game that could be finished (as opposed to guitar hero or a sports sim) I have a mini-learning curve where I have to try and remember how to play and what I was doing. I find this generally adds quite a significant amount of play time to the majority of games.

I don't beat games because I've learned they press charges.

Some games I'll beat in no time at all and others will take hours or hours spread over months, I beat Heavenly Sword in 3 sittings (well the story), over the course of 2 weeks or maybe one, not sure about the hours, where as I've taken absolutely hours and many sittings and months over Oblivion trying to find every last little thing before I hit the last quest on the story, going a wee bit old school, but FF7 i completed in 19 hours and 230 something hours, just depends really how much you want out of the game and how good the main story is at sucking you in against your own will power...In short yes i do.....first time around

I finished Oblivion in about 45 hours or so and that certainly wasn't a completionist playthrough. I simply got fed up with the game and rushed to finish the main quest. I did enjoy the Guild Quests and a few of the side quests/expansions from XBOX Live, but ultimately everything came down to entering a cave or a dungeon, running around, finding an item and leaving. I also didn't like the leveling of the enemies, it just ceased to be fun for me after a while.

I am hoping with Fallout 3 they change this. I still can't decide if I think that shorter game lengths of 10-12 hours is a good thing or not. I suppose 10-12 hours means I am far more likely to finish the game and really the only casualty is likely the storyline of the game.

For me, it depends how engaging the game is. If it draws me in, I take my time and explore every facet, storyline, quest, and battle in the game. If it has good action, or a good battle system, but never really breaks down the fourth wall, I'll blaze through it and consider it a fun diversion.

I usually beat a game in the amount of time that the game says I will. Except I beat Portal in 45 minutes, and cheated heavily because some parts my computer isn't good enough to render beyond 10fps.

I definitely think games are lacking in the length category. With the price of development, many games are trying to artificially lengthen their content with silly puzzles, or just going through the same levels but in a "Dark" or "Backwards" style. I think this aspect of a video game is actually quite creative in most instances (SOTN, A Link to the past), but its just something that has lost all of its novelty because its the "go-to" method of lengthening a game. I never really have the issues of beating a game too quickly because I'm the explorer type who likes to find everything his first time through. Thats not to say that even though I do cover almost every facet of the game, the games still seem rather short. so, to conclude: no, we're not beating games quickly, the games are just shorter than advertised (if you even listen to that filth anymore.)

I really don't know... I finished PREY in 8 hours, but other than that i havent given completion time a thought. But i finished HL2:Ep1&2 in at most 6 hours each.

When I was 7 years I got LoZ:OoT for Christmas and it took me and my dad a full year to finish.

krysalist:
I don't beat games because I've learned they press charges.

That made me giggle.

Metroid: Zero Mission
Last time I played it through, I beat the game in 1h 30min approx.
But then again. Played it many times so I've learned the tips & tricks of course :)

On the other hand.
Super Metroid.
My record is 2hrs. But I can play that game for hours more, walking around and listening to the sweet music of Deep Maridia as I quietly shuffle myself for a relaxing catnap.

I will usually spend a lot of time just enjoying the game playing through it slowly. Sometimes, if the story is really engaging or presented in a way that I want to keep mowing through it, I'll do the main story/quest/game really fast and then on the replay work on completing everything, sometimes with aid of walkthroughs. RPGs (especially jRPGs) I almost never complete within the advertised time because I often will fight every encounter and explore dead ends looking for secrets.

Nowadays with the cost of games I purpose start playing games on hard so that I can get more play time out of them ( Medal of Honor:H2 for the Wii for example ). Super Mario Galaxy was so easy that I had to limit myself to only collecting 10 stars per sitting. And then when I tried to replay the game I realised that it sucked with luigi because he is the worst at everything.

Most current games are either too easy or resort to stupid boring quests to extend game play. but what can you do? everygame has already been made.

I vary on completion time, sometimes I beat a game stupidly fast, and sometimes, it gets on top of me and I ignore it. I have a game for the ps1 I have yet to complete, but am too embaressed to say what it is.

Managed to finish mass effect on my first playthrough in just over 20 hours. That saddened me a little as I remember KOTOR 2 taking me much longer.

Halo 3 and devil may cry 4 suffered similar fates. Are games just getting shorter in general? I remember playing sonic 3 on my mega drive, it took me ages to finish that, now i'm getting games and finishing them 2 days later.

MagnetoHydroDynamics:
I really don't know... I finished PREY in 8 hours, but other than that i havent given completion time a thought. But i finished HL2:Ep1&2 in at most 6 hours each.

you can't really judge FPS since they are generally really short anyway.

i find that people who 'beat' games fast often just go for the end without doing anything outside the main plot. just because you can do a game in half the time the box states means nothing except your not enjoying the game to its full potential.

Huh...I still don't really fully understand what causes the OCD to kick in and make me play every side-quest. Twilight Princess, I did a couple of the extra things but lost interest in stuff like the Gold Bug hunt. Beat it in about 30 or so. But Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow? For some reason I absolutely had to have every single soul in the game. That, needless to say, took a while.

I don't think I feel cheated by that though, how seriously can you take a box blurb that's doing everything in its power to make you buy it?

When a game is said to have X hours of gameplay, it's because they're counting with the fetch quests. The main plot usually takes a lot less than that.

Yes, i beat games too fast. the first time i played super metroid, i took nearly 3 hours to beat it. Yet, in games like zelda oot, i beat the game and then came back to do everything, just because i like kakariko vilage's song (in majora's mask, i spent DAYS just wandering around clock town, doing nothing but using the masks and see people's reactions)

I rarely do the collect skulls, orbs, flags, packages. Stuff because in most games after the plots over theres no new intersting events. Take Oblivion, once the gates were all closed there was lesss incentive to play because the game wasn't as interesting.

I tend to complete games fast because the fast pace keeps me interested, otherwise i get bored before the end. Final Fantasy is a good example burning through 10 made me appreciate it less but i know the story and i since traded it in, job done.