Video games are not too long, and open worlds are not too big. The issue is that some games take far too long to kick off and let you know if they,re worth your time.
When you find the right game, you can play it for 100 hours and still want more. Who wouldn't want 100 hours of a great time? Your time is far too valuable to waste on boring, bloated titles. When faced with a massive game promising 200 hours of content, the natural question is: how much of that is actually fun, and how much is just grind?
Consider these juicy game lengths:
The Witcher 3: The main story takes about 50 hours. Factor in side quests and every point of interest (POI), and we're looking at around 150 hours.
Cyberpunk 2077: The main story and core side quests take around 50 hours, with at least 100 hours needed to clear the whole map.
Game of Thrones: The entire TV series runs about 72 hours—and I know you watched it all twice, two episodes a day. (I did)
Nobody complained that Game of Thrones was too long. So why is 50 hours of a great game's main story suddenly a problem?
The real problem is pacing and engagement. Take Final Fantasy VII Remake. At 44% completion (Chapter 8), I still did not care about the story. Most of my time was spent hunting for stray cats or lost kids. I completed a few main missions alongside violent activists while the game teased what I assumed was the main plot, all while being pushed into dates with two characters the game desperately wanted me to like. Halfway through the game, I was still not hooked.
Now compare that with Cyberpunk 2077, which hooked me right from the prologue. I instantly fell for the vibe of Night City. From the very first mission, I felt a strong sense of agency—that my dialogue choices and actions mattered and that I could play V “my way”. The stakes were high from the top. It did not waste time forcing me into boring fetch quests just to artificially build attachment.
In The Witcher 3, the stakes are clear within an hour: we’re searching for Ciri and Yennefer, Nilfgaard has occupied Temeria, and the populace is miserable. Soon enough, you’re moving from town to town, hunting monsters for coin to spend on booze and hookers while tracking Ciri down. I could do that for weeks—and I did.
I bought NieR: Automata assuming it was just another Japanese hack-and-slash. Within an hour, the gameplay loop and the melancholy music around the resistance camp had me completely hooked. I remember feeling a deep sense of loneliness, and I loved it. By hour two, the story deeply intrigued me. Why aren't these robots attacking me? Why is this one cradling a dead robot like a baby? What are we REALLY doing here? Curiosity is a powerful hook, and the game used it brilliantly.
Why do these opening hours matter so much when the debate is about overall length? Because early engagement makes you want to sink in and submerge yourself in the world. You actually dive into side quests, even knowing they prolong the experience, because when you’re having a blast, you want to keep the party going.
Critics and players frequently raise a few common complaints:
"Games don't value your time because they're too long."
People who binged 72 hours of Game of Thrones and average five hours of daily phone time cannot reasonably complain that games are too long. TV shows use psychological hooks like delayed answers and cliffhangers to keep viewers invested over multiple seasons. The initial episodes establish value immediately. Don’t even think the season finally will bring closure to the plot. All we get is a teaser for season two. I hate TV shows.
"Side quests are a waste of time."
Some games are undeniably bloated with mediocre side content:
Fetch quests for irrelevant NPCs that have zero impact on the story.
Escort missions for throwaway characters who walk painfully slow through predictable ambush points.
Uninteresting map POIs that feel like repetitive chores just to yield low-tier loot and some XP.
This is what people mean when they say developers waste their time. Even The Witcher 3 had skippable monster nests and bandit camps with mundane loot. CD Projekt Red clearly learned from this; clearing NCPD pop-up crimes in Cyberpunk 2077 felt much more rewarding. Was it because the core combat was deeper and more sastifying, or the average crime scene could be cleaned quicker? Probably both. One thing both games did great though, is interesting side quests. Driving a stranger to a ripperdoc is a lot funnier when his crotch is on fire! Have you seen what happens if you don’t get him to destination? Good times.. not for him though.
"I don't have time to play."
Many gamer dads sink endless hours into Call of Duty, PUBG, or live service battle passes, only to lose their first Battle Royale match to teen players. Others spend hours chopping trees in survival games like Valheim. While there is nothing wrong with these games, they often involve long stretches of low-quality engagement.
It’s up to each of us to manage our schedule, but most people spend hours doom-scrolling or watching Netflix. For me, gaming is a far better use of time. I have played through Cyberpunk 2077 six times and hit emotional peaks that no TV show has ever matched.
Whatever you enjoy—deep storytelling, visceral combat, punishing difficulty, or total sandbox freedom—there is a game that delivers it within the first four hours. Do not avoid starting a great RPG out of fear that you will never finish it. Try it, and see if it hooks you. If a game fails to prove its value after eight hours, do not feel guilty about dropping it for something else. Some game devs actually do make long games that respect your time.
Video games are not too long; they just are not all meant for you. But when a game lands, it hits hard—which brings me to the topic of my next essay: "Why Big Men Cry at Cartoons”, where I’ll explore how games makes us care about their world and characters.
Thanks for reading — Raph.
When you find the right game, you can play it for 100 hours and still want more. Who wouldn't want 100 hours of a great time? Your time is far too valuable to waste on boring, bloated titles. When faced with a massive game promising 200 hours of content, the natural question is: how much of that is actually fun, and how much is just grind?
Consider these juicy game lengths:
The Witcher 3: The main story takes about 50 hours. Factor in side quests and every point of interest (POI), and we're looking at around 150 hours.
Cyberpunk 2077: The main story and core side quests take around 50 hours, with at least 100 hours needed to clear the whole map.
Game of Thrones: The entire TV series runs about 72 hours—and I know you watched it all twice, two episodes a day. (I did)
Nobody complained that Game of Thrones was too long. So why is 50 hours of a great game's main story suddenly a problem?
The real problem is pacing and engagement. Take Final Fantasy VII Remake. At 44% completion (Chapter 8), I still did not care about the story. Most of my time was spent hunting for stray cats or lost kids. I completed a few main missions alongside violent activists while the game teased what I assumed was the main plot, all while being pushed into dates with two characters the game desperately wanted me to like. Halfway through the game, I was still not hooked.
Now compare that with Cyberpunk 2077, which hooked me right from the prologue. I instantly fell for the vibe of Night City. From the very first mission, I felt a strong sense of agency—that my dialogue choices and actions mattered and that I could play V “my way”. The stakes were high from the top. It did not waste time forcing me into boring fetch quests just to artificially build attachment.
In The Witcher 3, the stakes are clear within an hour: we’re searching for Ciri and Yennefer, Nilfgaard has occupied Temeria, and the populace is miserable. Soon enough, you’re moving from town to town, hunting monsters for coin to spend on booze and hookers while tracking Ciri down. I could do that for weeks—and I did.
I bought NieR: Automata assuming it was just another Japanese hack-and-slash. Within an hour, the gameplay loop and the melancholy music around the resistance camp had me completely hooked. I remember feeling a deep sense of loneliness, and I loved it. By hour two, the story deeply intrigued me. Why aren't these robots attacking me? Why is this one cradling a dead robot like a baby? What are we REALLY doing here? Curiosity is a powerful hook, and the game used it brilliantly.
Why do these opening hours matter so much when the debate is about overall length? Because early engagement makes you want to sink in and submerge yourself in the world. You actually dive into side quests, even knowing they prolong the experience, because when you’re having a blast, you want to keep the party going.
Critics and players frequently raise a few common complaints:
"Games don't value your time because they're too long."
People who binged 72 hours of Game of Thrones and average five hours of daily phone time cannot reasonably complain that games are too long. TV shows use psychological hooks like delayed answers and cliffhangers to keep viewers invested over multiple seasons. The initial episodes establish value immediately. Don’t even think the season finally will bring closure to the plot. All we get is a teaser for season two. I hate TV shows.
"Side quests are a waste of time."
Some games are undeniably bloated with mediocre side content:
Fetch quests for irrelevant NPCs that have zero impact on the story.
Escort missions for throwaway characters who walk painfully slow through predictable ambush points.
Uninteresting map POIs that feel like repetitive chores just to yield low-tier loot and some XP.
This is what people mean when they say developers waste their time. Even The Witcher 3 had skippable monster nests and bandit camps with mundane loot. CD Projekt Red clearly learned from this; clearing NCPD pop-up crimes in Cyberpunk 2077 felt much more rewarding. Was it because the core combat was deeper and more sastifying, or the average crime scene could be cleaned quicker? Probably both. One thing both games did great though, is interesting side quests. Driving a stranger to a ripperdoc is a lot funnier when his crotch is on fire! Have you seen what happens if you don’t get him to destination? Good times.. not for him though.
"I don't have time to play."
Many gamer dads sink endless hours into Call of Duty, PUBG, or live service battle passes, only to lose their first Battle Royale match to teen players. Others spend hours chopping trees in survival games like Valheim. While there is nothing wrong with these games, they often involve long stretches of low-quality engagement.
It’s up to each of us to manage our schedule, but most people spend hours doom-scrolling or watching Netflix. For me, gaming is a far better use of time. I have played through Cyberpunk 2077 six times and hit emotional peaks that no TV show has ever matched.
Whatever you enjoy—deep storytelling, visceral combat, punishing difficulty, or total sandbox freedom—there is a game that delivers it within the first four hours. Do not avoid starting a great RPG out of fear that you will never finish it. Try it, and see if it hooks you. If a game fails to prove its value after eight hours, do not feel guilty about dropping it for something else. Some game devs actually do make long games that respect your time.
Video games are not too long; they just are not all meant for you. But when a game lands, it hits hard—which brings me to the topic of my next essay: "Why Big Men Cry at Cartoons”, where I’ll explore how games makes us care about their world and characters.
Thanks for reading — Raph.