I still remember clearing my calendar for Red Dead Redemption 2. What started as a fun outlaw adventure slowly turned into an emotional second job. Don't get me wrong—Arthur Morgan's story is one of the best I've ever played—but by the time the credits rolled, I was completely drained. So when Rockstar started dropping Grand Theft Auto 6 news ahead of its 2026 release, my first question wasn't about the map size or the new protagonists. It was: how long is this thing going to be?

The numbers back up my concern. Player completion data shows that finishing GTA 5's main story plus a few side activities averages around 48.5 hours. Meanwhile, Red Dead Redemption 2's complete story often lands near 80 hours. That's a massive jump, and it's the kind of time investment that can turn an amazing game into a chore.

i-loved-red-dead-redemption-2-but-gta-6-should-be-shorter-image-0

Here's my worry: the Grand Theft Auto franchise is built on fast, explosive, high-octane action. Wild shootouts, police chases, and absurd stunts are fun in short bursts. But stretch those same mechanics across 80 or 100 hours and they start to feel repetitive. I've replayed GTA 5 multiple times because its pacing keeps things tight. If GTA 6 pushes toward RDR2 length, I'm not sure I'll finish it once.

A longer story isn't automatically bad, of course. The problem is balance. RDR2 worked because its slow, methodical pace matched its narrative. You'd spend one mission mourning a fallen gang member and the next riding quietly through the mountains, soaking in the world. High-action moments were spaced out with long patches of rest, which gave the story room to breathe. If GTA 6 loses that balance—if it's just mission after mission of shooting and driving with no variety—it could become exhausting quickly.

i-loved-red-dead-redemption-2-but-gta-6-should-be-shorter-image-1

Mafia III is a perfect example of what happens when a game overstays its welcome. It had a genuinely interesting story and a powerful ending, but a lot of the middle was padded with repeatable district-takeover missions. Players had to use the same strategies over and over to make progress. By the end, even the strong narrative couldn't save the repetitive gameplay. GTA 6 could face the same issue if Rockstar fills those extra hours with copy-paste side quests and recycled shootouts.

I also think about the open world. GTA 5's Los Santos felt dense but manageable. RDR2's world was huge and gorgeous, but sometimes it felt like it was working against me. Long horse rides were atmospheric, but after the tenth identical ride, I started using fast travel. If GTA 6's Vice City or whatever location Rockstar throws at us is built for a 90-hour campaign, the driving and traveling could become a serious drag.

There's a real difference between wanting more content and wanting better content. I don't need GTA 6 to be shorter than GTA 5, but I don't need it to mimic RDR2's runtime either. A tight 50- to 60-hour experience with memorable missions, strong pacing, and meaningful side content would be perfect. Rockstar has already proven it can tell a deeply emotional story without making every mission feel like a marathon.

Here's what I'd love to see from GTA 6's runtime:

  • No filler missions just to pad the clock

  • Real variety in mission design, not endless shootouts

  • Side content that adds to the world instead of repeating it

  • A main story that respects my time

i-loved-red-dead-redemption-2-but-gta-6-should-be-shorter-image-2

The bottom line for me is simple: I'd rather replay a brilliantly paced 50-hour game three times than force myself through a bloated 100-hour campaign once. GTA 6 has the potential to be a generation-defining title. I just hope Rockstar remembers that bigger isn't always better, especially when the gameplay is as intense as Grand Theft Auto's. Give me a story I can sink into without feeling like I need a vacation afterward.