No RPG needs to be longer than 40 hours
A Polygon opinion piece argues that role-playing games should not exceed 40 hours in length, regardless of genre conventions that often celebrate ultra-long campaigns. The author contends that while different game genres warrant different runtimes based on their design requirements, most ultra-long RPGs fail to justify their enormous playtime investment with meaningful content.
The piece acknowledges that runtime should serve gameplay purpose—pointing to examples like Star Fox, which benefits from being quick and highly replayable, and 007 First Light, a 20-hour narrative-focused experience that uses its length to build a James Bond origin story. However, the author argues that extended RPG campaigns frequently dilute their impact through late-game grinding and repetitive mechanics.
Drawing from personal experience, the author admits to abandoning games they otherwise enjoyed around the 50-hour mark due to exhaustion from repetitive content and pacing issues. This reflects broader criticism that modern RPGs often inflate playtime through filler content rather than meaningful narrative or mechanical innovation.
The piece challenges industry conventions that have made excessive length a selling point in RPG marketing, suggesting instead that a 40-hour ceiling would encourage tighter design, better pacing, and less reliance on content padding to justify purchase price.