What will it be?

just play long dong on ironman impossible, each campaign lasts 700+ hours
then you can mess with dynamic war to set its multiplier below 1
enjoy your 10,000 hour campaigns

Better question

GROUND ZEROES or THE PHANTOM PAIN

As long as all of those 200 hours are good, then I'll take the 200 hour one.

Basically the Witcher 3, really.

Six hour game.
Yes your game can be 200 hours but that don't mean it'll all be good, shit the fact that people would pick the right despite the controversy No Man's Sky has created is stupid.

Meanwhile you can "beat" Binding of Issac in 45 minutes but that shit will never get old even after the 200th hour.

Why not both?

The former, generally. I've gotten hundreds of hours out of shorter games that had potentially infinite replay value. I prefer shorter but sweeter experiences because I feel like they condense a lot of quality content into a shorter period, thus cutting out the bullshit, like unnecessarily long tutorials, taking forever to get to the meat of the game, filler, etc.

This. One of these days, I really want to finally beat Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen though, and try my hand at RPGs.

Every game I consider my favorites tends to be the one on the right.

Tales of Symphonia.

80+ hours long, beaten it 30+ times.

This tbqh senpai

>ToS

Now I'm mad my memory card took a shit on me. I could stand to lose six straight days of my life to this masterpiece

Cave Story vs FFXII then
Id take Cave Story

For me, depending on how you look at it, they're all both. For example, without use of spoilers (I didn't start utilizing them until I started getting to Gehennom quite regularly, in retrospect I shouldn't have), it can be assumed that beating NetHack once takes about a thousand hours and even with spoilers, a novice roguelike player could be looking at those 200+ hours. However, it's "infinitely replayable".

Beating Heroes of Might and Magic 3 campaigns takes something to that effect (although I'm not a fan of them so I opt to play scenarios) but I've played it for hundreds of hours.

If you survive in a good position until the end in really big meme games, a single match in Dominions could conceivably take that long.

Etc.

holy moly how many times a year is that?

Left is literally dead rising

6 hour game
I have dozens if not at least a hundred games on my backlog to go through, there's no way in hell I'm going to put 200 hours into one playthrough of a game even if it is the second coming of christ

>A game that takes 200 hours to beat once
By that you mean an open world game that is long not for the story but because of all the things you can waste your time doing in the big map or a story so long that would take you 200 hours to complete?

Left is objectively better, unless right somehow has 200 hours of actual content instead of 10 hours of content spread across 200.

I've got both.

The 6 hour game. I like long games, but not when I get the itch to replay them and remember just how much time I'd have to sink into them just to play through them again.

>6 hours of pure condensed gameplay that makes you come back for more
>200 hours of extremely stretched and repetitive content that you never want to touch again
what a hard decision

The short replayable game.

Crazy-long games are generally full of tedious filler.

basically Super mario world or final fantasy 7?

Usually 200 hour games are a hassle to think about starting.
If you decide to stop mid game and come back to it, its hard to get back into it.
the 200 hour game is probably worth more, and better played all the way through.

the 6 hour game will be more valuable over time.
If you're bored you're more likely to start playing that.

I'd probably say the 6 hour game unless i have tons of time to waste.

12-15 hours of story + 5 hours sidequests + 10 hours optional activities

Think Yakuza games.

So basically its Revengeance vs. The Phantom Pain?

MGS vs MGSV

left if the game is gameplay focused (Doom, Crysis)

Right if the game is all-around solid. No shit gameplay like TW3, and needs to stay interesting.

Middle of the road (10-50 hours) is the hotspot.

>taking 200 hours to beat TPP

200 hours is too long for any one game. You will never have fun doing the same thing for 200 hours.

If you asked me if I wanted an infinitely replayable 6 hour game or a game that takes 60 hours to beat once, I'd probably take the 60 hour game. But 200? Nah. That's neither replayable nor finishable in the first place. I love replaying a 20-40 hour game because that's a good time to nail down both gameplay and story elements, while a sub 10 hour game is good for stuff like DMC or FPS that becomes super repetitive but doesn't need some overarching plot to drive the game forward.

Deus Ex.
>multiple paths to do objectives
>multiple endings
>always fun for a replay
>long

Left now that I'm an adult, right when I was a kid.

It's fun to replay MW2/BO1 every now and then.

It would probably take me ten to twelve weeks to beat a 200 hour game.

I'd pick the 6 hour game.

It perfectly describes Ratchet & Clank 3, which is a personal favourite of mine

Is the right one fun?

MGS 1-4 is the former.
MGSV is the latter, because its full of padding.

Ill take the former.

Well for one replayability means its actually good enough for multiple plays.
And those 200 hours are probably trailing missions and cinematics anyway

One on the right, because there's little chance I'm going to replay the game on the left 35 times.

>right
RPG

>left
other game

Option B.

Bonus points if it has retarded amounts of grinding and secret bosses.

The right one, assuming it's good, and assuming that it doesn't have a bunch of grinding.

200 hours just to beat or 200 hours to fully complete?
I'm not going to be dragged along for 200 hours to see an ending, but a 75-100 game with an extra 100-125 hours of side content and expansions would be definitely better.

Casuals do have time
Adults don't

Nigger I finished it in 30 hours, and the story didn't have that many choices (implying there's unseen content if you only finish it once)
It's only replayable because you can try different approaches

I then finished Human Revolution and even that was more replayable story-wise

Funny, I'm the complete opposite. More and more lately, I find myself gravitating towards shorter, yet sweeter games that have a shit ton of replay value, generally being action games with deep combat that demand that you git gud and master their combat systems.

No game should be longer than 30 hours, and even that's a guaranteed stretch with lots of filler and sub-par content.

Most games don't have much excuse to be longer than 6 hours.

Casuals love Skyrim, Fallout 4, Final Fantasy XIV, and No Man's Sky because it's a lazy tine sink

I put more hours into GZ and had more fun.

During my teen years, I would have chosen the latter, but nowadays, I would prefer the first option.

First one.

Fuck, this games not even 3 hours long but it has like 9 endings and tons of weapons

FUCK YEAH WAY OF THE SAMURAI, MAH NIGGA!!!

I'll take Bayonetta over Ass Creed
I'll take FO:NV over The Order

Well said. Anyone who disagrees can gtfo Cred Forums.

Probably the 6 hour one

The only way for games to get 200 hours of playtime is if they extremely repetitive, full of filler, long drawn out battles, fetch quests, and have giant copy/paste overworlds with copy paste mission types. In other words, not fun, or merely the illusion of fun because you're fooled by a skinner box

If a 6 hour game is replayable that much, then it must be fun.

a 1 hour game with no replayablity

hi shelby

Hey Steve.

left, every time
there are very few games I give enough of a shit to put 200 hours into

Every time? Did you forget Morrowind exists

Left: Dark Souls
Right: Dragon Quest

Morrowind is the rare mix of both. Where a game can be 200 hours long and absurdly replayable.

Jesus fuck, I'm not 12 any more. I don't have the time or energy to invest 200 hours into a single fucking game on the offchance that it's worth it.

>game that takes 200 hours to beat once

name 1 (one) game that does this, that doesn't involve half of that time exploring every location or doing other trivial shit

>FTL vs. Stellaris

Every mmo ever.

except Dark souls is more like a 25-30 hours game on first play through

Left. Although I can enjoy both, in the end I'll love a Super Metroid or Sonic 3 over a Dragon Quest VIII.

If a game is 200 hours long, most of its content is probably repetitive filler.

Left

Wow I can't wait to glide over the same dunes in a linear fashion again.

>mmo
>not doing inordinate amounts of time-consuming trivial shit.
Pick one.

The 6 hour one every time.

Who the fuck wants to devote 200 hours to a single game when there are so many good games out there to play?

How about a game that takes 300 hours to "beat" and can extend to 5000 hours or even more to actually "beat" it.

Pokemon GO

:^)

Most of my favorite games are actually left. So I'll take that

Right

I like coming home after work to huge worlds for about 7 weeks.

Right, it isn't even a fucking contest. Assuming both are consistent in terms of fun, the right option at least guarantees a steady flow of new content.

For me, short but replayable games are more immediately fun on average but typically fall short of becoming all-time favorites. I play it a few times and forget about it.

The ones I really remember and cherish are the long hauls.

>traveling with the same guy the entire time
>he sits down in the snow and fades away on the final stage
>finish the journey alone

;_; why?

>NMS
You tried.

>pixelshit

this. i'd rather just play a good game

There are no good games, there are only shit games you hate and shit games you tolerate.

A 30 minute game that is absurdly replayable and is meant to be played in one go.

That 200 hour game is only going to have about 6 hours worth of fun content, so the 6 hour game.

>Only 30 minutes for one go
>Not being a neet and beating 8+ hour games in single sittings

Depends on how absurdly replayable we're talking. Absurd replayability implies quality, whereas a 200 hour game has no such implication; Skyrim can take 200 hours but it's all just copypaste shit for example.

Because of their length they are balanced around checkpoints which isn't the case for 30 minute games

And this is a bad thing because...?

No tension. Being at the end of a 30 minute game on your last life is one of the most exciting and tense feelings you will get in games that games with checkpoints and unlimited lives/continues can never hope to provide

>200 hours to beat
Immediately red flag for being thinned out and drags on

At least that 6 hour game is such great quality that it is implied you would want to replay it an "absurd" amount of times.

Morrowind

What if the 200 hour game is also absurdly replayable? The image doesn't say anything about the longer game's replayability.

The fact that it specifies replayability for one implies the other lacks replayability.

Like if I said 'would you rather fuck a hot woman with AIDS, or an ugly woman,' it's implied the ugly woman does not have AIDS.

I'd fuck the ugly woman. More replayability, since you won't get AIDS so you can do more fucking.

200 hour game
"replayable" games are usually ones with shit stories and lots of randomly generated or procedurally generated things in them, which is awful.

The most "replayable" games are just good games.

So RE4 vs anything else?
I will take my huge tits tank you very much

What makes it different from being near the end of a 30 minute section between checkpoints?

This reminds me of this idiotic theory I have: Old, SNES era RPGs had their world size and game length severely limited by the cartridge and the console, I always wondered what would happen if they took those same 16bit graphics, those same optimization and consolidation techniques, and that same sense of variety spread throughout, but then used every byte of space on a bluray disc or whichever. How gigantic would that game be?

The fact that the only games with checkpoints that sparse are slow paced shit where hardly anything happens during those 30 minutes. The fact that the difficulty will not rise sharply during those 30 minutes because you're just playing a small section of the game.

Only the old fashioned thrill of "beating the game"

200 hours

It doesn't matter how much replayablity, my boredom can only handle 3 repeats max.

easy

Also, more importantly, would anyone ever want to play that?

Persona 4 is around 80 hours long and I've replayed it at least 3 times.

If you pick the one on the right you don't like actual videogames

Are you calling me a commie?

possibly

Yes.

...

i like both left and right and depending on my mood i could choose either come at me bro

twas a spirit to guide you user.

Neither. I prefer games that you can't "beat".

>not playing three 200+ hour Disgaea saves over the years, plus one of every other game

Just kill me

you asked for it pal

>taking 5000 hours to beat Gog or Apex Dick
Unless you're going full autismo going for all crowns and HR999

Not many games are worth 200 hours so the other one.

So dead rising 1 vs witcher 3?

Ill take both

Star Fox 64 is around an hour long and I'd play that millions of times before I'd play Nu Male's Sky even once

>200 hour game is boring cinematic trash
>never want to play it again once I beat it, if I ever beat it, because it relied on "muh plot" and "muh cinematics" to be good
>will likely regret it afterward

I think I'll take the replayable game, since that automatically implies that the game was good enough the first time around.

You chain of argumentation is very dependent on the game being shit as a whole, you noticed that?

>The fact that it specifies replayability for one implies the other lacks replayability.
Not especially, all it implies is that it is replayable the moment you finished it, and not like other games, maybe once a year.

Right, Metro game please

The game on the left sounds far better designed, and more to the point, moddable.

Fucking Christ, that's not even a question. I start getting burned out on a game if it lasts me 20 hours, let alone 200. There is no one single concept so great as to carry a game for that long without getting stale or blatantly padded at some point.

I'll take the 6 hour game.

Nah. Final Fantasy XII.

The short but replayable game.

Are there even any good game out there with 200 hours worth of a single playthrough? The only ones I can think is Mount & Blade and some grand strategy games, and they're usually tedious, especially if you're just conquering everything.

.. Well.. The best experiences I've had are the longer games that were amazing throughout. But both can be fantastic so..?

The largest amount of space available on an SNES cart was 117.5 megabits, a single layer blue ray disc holds 25 gigabytes. Even the most space consuming SNES games only used around 48 megabits. 25 gigabytes is 200,000 megabits. You tell me how big that would be, man.

DOOM. short but replayable

Nier. long but unreplayable