• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Marvel: Spider Man 2 is 30 hours long

Draugoth

Gold Member
How-Long-Is-Marvels-Spider-Man-2_.jpg.webp

It will take 17 – 20 hours to beat Marvel’s Spider-Man 2’s main story and see the credits roll. Additionally, it will take 25 – 30 hours to complete all of the main and side content. Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 is the same length as the first game in the series, Marvel’s Spider-Man. However, it is longer than Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales.

This has been confirmed by Insomniac Games’ Senior Game Director, Ryan Smith, in an interview with VG247. In that interview, Smith explained that Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 would be “in the same ball-park as the first game in terms of overall playtime” and that they weren’t looking to make it an epic “80-100 hour game.”

While fans looking for a lengthy Spider-Man adventure may be disappointed, there will still be plenty of collectibles and things to do outside of the main story. You’ll also have a much larger open world to explore, with even more districts than the previous 2 Marvel’s Spider-Man games.


 
Last edited:
Perfect length honestly.

Would rather get SM2 in 2-3 years (vs. Ratcher or Miles, depending on perspective) than having to wait 5 years for a bloated Horizon/God of War that could have used an editor or narrower scope. Neither of those two titles needed to take 5 years and probably would have been better for it without so much bloat.
 

K' Dash

Member
…for some people yes. For some people it’ll be less. For some people it’ll take 3x as long.

Stop with these baity, bullshit objective opinion threads. Jesus

I like these kind of threads because my time to play video games is very limited, I usually check how long to beat when choosing something new from my backlog, so this information is useful to me.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Perfect length honestly.

Would rather get SM2 in 2-3 years (vs. Ratcher or Miles, depending on perspective) than having to wait 5 years for a bloated Horizon/God of War that could have used an editor or narrower scope. Neither of those two titles needed to take 5 years and probably would have been better for it without so much bloat.
This. I cant believe devs have to now apologize for creating 30 hour long games. absolutely fucking ridiculous.
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
That's ok.
20 for main, 30 for main+side is good. if it's longer to plat, that's also fine but I dont do that.
 

Chuck Berry

Gold Member
I like these kind of threads because my time to play video games is very limited, I usually check how long to beat when choosing something new from my backlog, so this information is useful to me.

Not the way I see it at all. These threads are made to be console war shit slingers for all the kids. Nothing good comes out of them.

Guarantee we see a poll in an hour asking which game length we prefer: Spiderman 2 (even though no one’s fucking played it) or Starfield 😑
 
Last edited:
And a week later a 25 min done quick run will be shown to the developers.

But seriously, I welcome a nice long 30 hour single player Spiderman game.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
I'm good with the length, but if it has a larger world with more districts then the original, I would have expected it to take longer than the original.
 
Good. I'm tired of wasting 100 hours in useless filler. I like to finish those big blockbuster games but they are making very hard with artificially extended lenght. I cannot play every game I'd like to for this shitty practice. But I also hate to drop games.
Developers should be more respectful of people time
 

Arsic

Loves his juicy stink trail scent
I’m all for it as long as I don’t play as MJ once, or have to deal with the game shitting out 70% more side quests in the last stretch of the game.

The first game was on track for excellent pacing and how much content it had then went off rails to throw way too much repeat content out the whazoo with the annoying snipers on roof tops all over New York.

Miles Morales was a better game because it had none of these issues and respected my time. I enjoyed the story in the first game more even though I find Miles far more interesting than Peter these days.
 
I completely (100%) played through the first game twice, second time on hardest difficulty, so this is perfect for me.

Very happy it’s not short like Miles was.
 
Quite weird that even with the game being practically the same size as the previous one, Sony sent the game so early to the media. Someone already got the platinum, apparently.

They could have easily sent the game on the 5th, with the embargo on the 18th. The Internet will be flooded with leaks in the coming days. :messenger_poop:
 

Pimpbaa

Member
30 hours was enough for the first game. It really didn’t have a diverse enough side quest activities to make it any longer. I’m not expecting the sequel to be that different from the first game and Miles Morales. It’s not like an open world rpg or open world adventure (like Zelda BOTW/TOTK) where I expect it to be much longer due to a vast range of things to do.
 

Laieon

Member
20-30 hours is my preferred game length and while I thought the 1st game ended a bit too abruptly (and that's more of a writing issue), by that point I saw what I wanted to see and played what I wanted to play. Glad to hear they're still making the series short and sweet compared to other big name titles.

Was the original main story that long? I remember it being kinda short, at ten hours maybe?

I just replayed it and beat it in around 18 hours (while doing the occasional side mission, but not going out of my way to do them). Miles Morales was about 10-12 hours.
 
Last edited:

Larxia

Member
This doesn't really mean anything, because it includes achievements and all, so it's not so much in the end.
I thought the first one was way too short, everytime I did a story mission and looked at my save, there was like 15% more progression.
 
Top Bottom