20 hours + all the side stuff thats in the game (supposedly another 20+ hours to explore all 100 locations) is more then enough for me.

Gamers need to get over RPG's being 100 hours of repetitive grinding.

That is more than enough for me, and besides it is going to be episodic.

Echo the wisdom posted above.

Quality over quantity.

A game I might finish...I think I will like this

Seeing as how the article seems to suggest that the 20-30 hours is a more conservative estimate, it sounds fair. Especially since I'm one of those people that tries to do everything, so it'll probably end up being 40+ hours anyways.

Seriously. Whenever I have conversations with those people, over half the time it's a variation on:

"Bioware's(or any RPG company) really dumbing down. Whatever happened to more full-length RPG's like Baldur's Gate II?"
"Did you ever actually finish BGII?"
"That's irrelevant."

I did. When I was unemployed. Now? I don't have that kind of time...

I've come to prefer my console rpg's or other "epic" adventure type games to be in the sub-30 hour range for the main quest in most cases, with lots of optional content to extend the game if I want to. Rogue Galaxy, Final Fantasy XII, and Oblivion are great recent examples of this general trend; you could finish either in under 30 hours if you just rip through the story and ignore the sidequests. Or, you could easily drop 100+ hours in for playing the completionist route.

Dragon Quest 8 was one of the rare cases of a game that practically requires a 60+ hour commitment that I didn't mind. In fact, the entire reason I play a Dragon Quest game is for a long, meandering adventure.

If Mass Effect is following the trend of the games I described above, I'll be more than happy. I can expect a reasonably solid main quest with a lot of great sidequesting fun when I want to indulge in it.

Very good point. Talos is my main barrier to replaying KotOR. It's become pretty stylish to bag on long games, but it's all about pacing. Many games do not have to be as long as they are. Many games do. BG2 has been brought up. That's a game that I wouldn't have wanted a single second shorter. Contrarily, I think The Wind Waker could have benefited from some serious shaving down in parts. Games should be as long as they need to be to achieve what they want to achieve. Imagine if The Longest Journey had been as short as Dreamfall. It wouldn't have been nearly as loved, because they simply could not have delivered that story in so short a time. On the other hand, imagine if Gears of War were actually a finished game. Riddick was a fantastic short game, RE4 was a fantastic long one.

All lengths from 12 hours to 100 can be awesome, depending on whether the game can support it. Bioware-style games tend to need to be on the longer side to fully realize the potential of what they're shooting for. Sorry if that conflicts with your delicate sensibilities, but I'd rather the game be all that it can be than change to satisfy a group who admits they don't have time to play it in the first place. There are plenty of shorter games out there, so go play them. No need to complain that not ALL games pander to your specific needs. That's why there's more than one developer in the world.

I wish this had co-op.

Hahahaha. Nice.

Is Mass Effect console only?

So far yes, but so were KOTOR and Jade Empire before it and they both ended up with PC treatments (Jade Empire coming soon anyways).

This is a good blog post on the downside of long RPGs.

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/763/763050p1.html

I love the amount of side quest the RPG's are getting nowadays. It keeps the main story fast paced and good to complete. Also, I like the fact that it makes talking about the game with friends a lot more interesting. I can recount the exploits of my quests while he can tell me about his own experiences. Then we proceed to point each other to cool locations.