Are you satisfied with about 20 hours of gameplay?

[SFLUFAN]

We all heard Gabe say several months ago that it would have about 36 hours of gameplay but the reviewers have said that it's closer to 20. Are you satisfied with that amount?

 

[Biozeminade]

Yes it's long enough, because I know every second will be great.

 

[joule]

No, not really. I'll take Gabe's word for it and believe him. ~36 hours it is!
Or until PCGamer US reviews it and gives the approximate length, then I'll believe them.

 

[Harryz]

Definently satisfied. Most FPS struggle to give 12 hours of gameplay. I'm glad with the 20 hours.

 

[PvtRyan]

Playing time differs per person, it could very well take me 36 hours, reviewers don't tend to play in the same way as someone does for fun.
But if it's 20 hours of quality, I'm fine.

 

[SFLUFAN]

How long was the original Half Life anyway? I really don't remember how long it took me all those years ago

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

Ask me that question after I played it. Max Payne was short but damn good. Doom 3 was long and not so good. So it all depends on the immersiveness of the story. But I doubt I won't like it, so around 20 hours (which is far more than the average fps nowadays) is cool.

 

[Dr0ndeh]

the reviewers blatently rushed through it imo, they would have had to. its probably closer to 25 or something.

thats a long-ass game in anyones book.

 

[Dr0ndeh]

How long was the original Half Life anyway? I really don't remember how long it took me all those years ago

first time through i'd say about 15/20 hours.

 

[galoot3000]

well, im slow when it comes to beating games so itll be closer to 30 for me, and i will spend at least 20 hours messing w/ the physics

 

[SFLUFAN]

Really? I thought it took me longer than that - but then again, I had no concept of time while I was playing

 

[Bluestrike]

If its 20 hours of fun and something you want to try again sure.

Also the reviewers are somewhat in a hurry (because they didn't know how long it would take) so the average gamer might play slower to watch around more or play with stuff (physics/level objects and whatever).

Ofcourse a bit longer would have been nice.

What bothers me more is that there seem to be 15 levels what probebly means loading times/screens where HL had real short load times.

 

[f|uke]

I dont think HL2 could ever possibly be long enough. No matter what, i'll be left wanting more.

That being said, if it is about as long as the original HL, I'm fine with that.

 

[ailevation]

:cheers: 20 Hours+ would be great. Farcry was about 20 hours, look at that, a looooong ass time of boredom. Although I am sure Half Life 2 won't be boring!

 

[True_Eraser]

Playing time differs per person, it could very well take me 36 hours, reviewers don't tend to play in the same way as someone does for fun.
But if it's 20 hours of quality, I'm fine.

Exactly my sentiments, reviewers tend to play the game nonstop until its over so they can get the review done. not to mention they probably play on easy so they can get through it all faster.

20 hours is just fine, I love long games, but 20 hours is good enough, especially when shooters are getting shorter by the day.

 

[JohnnyBeverage]

20 hours means 24 to 28 for me. So yes im happy.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

Gabe said around 45 hours iirc, 20 hours? thats.. ok... but without decent mp?.. not good. not good at all

well as someone else said though, I would rather have 20 hours of quality gaming than 45 hours of repetitive rubbish *cough* doom3 *cough*.

 

[Subatomic]

6 years for 20 hours? I think not.

 

[Komb.at]

Enough for me. Doom3 took me longer to beat but i was bored shitless, as long as those 20 hours are a blast to play i take that everyday over a 40 hour yawnfest...

 

[Adrien C]

THEY RUSHED ! ! They had to review the game, it will take you longer, explore take your time.

No point of rushing. I've finished the game !

 

[Yombi]

6 years for 20 hours? I think not.

They made the source engine during those years aswell....dont forget the threats VALVe said they would do ablout holding back development...

edit: And i think they revieweres would of been rushing it.. I know alot of us here are going to muck round and see what we can see, probably just spend a hour doing that before we even get a weapon.

 

[Gorgon]

No - it's too short,

if valve realy made it 20 hours, I will try all my best to make it over 30.

 

[Platinum]

i have never ever EVER been so hyped for a game man ... this is nuts ... woot woot ... and im sure its gonna be around 25 hours more for me

 

[NetWarriorDan]

20 hours is a long time. I think the time it takes to finish the game for people will be very scarttered. I can see myself playing HL2 a lot. After I beat the game I go back to play my favorite parts. What kind of replay value will HL2 have? Good I hope/expect.

 

[Atomi]

I don't understand when people talk about "omg omg 20 hours is teh too short". I mean, Deus Ex is long as hell and I'm guessing it didn't take me over 25 hours to beat it. 20 hours is quite long these days.

 

[DrEvil]

I'll be playing it on hard anyway, i'll probably end up taking a lot more than 20 hours.

Even otherwise, 20 hours of solid gaming without halo style corridor after corridor of giant TVs should be very satisfying.

 

[Apos]

One thing the reviews mention is that there is a very high degree of replayability. One of the reasons HL1 took so long for me was because some sequences were so awesome that I had to keep playing them over and over to try out different things. Remember the very first battle with multiple marines? I must have played that sequence 20 times before moving on: back then having enemies that would react and work as a squad was amazing and new: you'd break left, one would charge you, you'd drop back to find one had flanked you, you kill him only to realize they left a nade where you were running.

If HL2 is anything like that, it's going to take 50 hours to complete.

However, I do remember Gabe saying that it was taking longer than it now seems to be, and there was talk of content getting cut in order to make the release. So maybe stuff DID get cut. If so, that's really too bad. But still: given how cool the world and interactions seem to be, I don't think the length of the story will be a downer. Max Payne2 was great on the first playthrough, but didn't really have much replyability (most of the enemies are the same, and playing too much again really brings that out).

 

[JohnnyBeverage]

I'll actually play about 60 to 80 hours as i'll replay it quite a few times. I still replay HL1 once a year at least.

 

[SFLUFAN]

Or it's possible that the extra time was material that just sucked or was boring and we're better off without it in the long run.

 

[Apos]

more likely it was really cool ideas that they couldn't get working in time: like the helicopter chase that got cut from HL1

 

[DrEvil]

One thing the reviews mention is that there is a very high degree of replayability. One of the reasons HL1 took so long for me was because some sequences were so awesome that I had to keep playing them over and over to try out different things. Remember the very first battle with multiple marines? I must have played that sequence 20 times before moving on: back then having enemies that would react and work as a squad was amazing and new: you'd break left, one would charge you, you'd drop back to find one had flanked you, you kill him only to realize they left a nade where you were running.

If HL2 is anything like that, it's going to take 50 hours to complete.

However, I do remember Gabe saying that it was taking longer than it now seems to be, and there was talk of content getting cut in order to make the release. So maybe stuff DID get cut. If so, that's really too bad. But still: given how cool the world and interactions seem to be, I don't think the length of the story will be a downer. Max Payne2 was great on the first playthrough, but didn't really have much replyability (most of the enemies are the same, and playing too much again really brings that out).

I loved that first encounter with the marines. I clearly remember how I tried to camp behind a wall expecting them to stroll in one by one and pick them off and was shocked when they lobbed a bunch of grenades in instead.

 

[BRODIEMAN2k4]

Yep, and then there's MP

 

[Zento]

Doom 3 took me about 15, so 20 should be good.

 

[Gunner]

Hey if you think the game is too short, try playing it on hard with just your crowbar

 

[Goldmember]

yes :farmer:

 

[Mr. Redundant]

I don't understand when people talk about "omg omg 20 hours is teh too short". I mean, Deus Ex is long as hell and I'm guessing it didn't take me over 25 hours to beat it. 20 hours is quite long these days.

well probably because Max Payne2, Farcry, and Doom3 to name some recent big ones, have had less than stellar/non-existent Multiplayer.

with HL2 it has the promise of mods (big plus but takes time) to lengthen it's lifetime.. I mean thats why we are still playing the Hl1 engine 6 years later.
however since the only mp component of HL2 is ****ing CS:S (CSers are happy, but others are not) once you have finished the sp and you dont like cs... its a wait for mods (about as bad as shipping with no mp at all)

 

[<RJMC>]

20 hours are fine

and I remenber HL1 was long too especialy cuz I die amny times he,but also is the fact that maybe we will do many thinks whit the manipulator and stuff like that and we will take more that 20 or 36 hours,I will play whit the manipulator

 

[Peks]

I can't wait for the video of the guy who beats it in 17 minutes.

 

[Ralfst3r]

Long enough for me. Considering it's longer than the original HL.

 

[scaryberry]

My "gold standard" for value/time is the movies. 2 hours for $10, or $5/hour. If a game can beat that - i.e., gimme 10 hours of gameplay for $50, I'm ok with it. I'd like more, but hey, if I even LIKE 3 out of 5 movies I see, I'm happy.