I am here to save us all time by determining which of our most-played videogames would be more efficiently completed if you had a gun

If there's one thing I know about the age of information, it's that none of us have time for anything anymore, nor the attention spans to see them through. If I'm not getting a constant jitterbug hit of dopamine every two seconds from my doomscrolling, am I really awake? Don't answer that. I don't want to think about the answer to that.

And if there's one thing I know about videogames, it's that man, they're getting long. If only there was a way to make these things shorter, somehow? Like, say, giving our protagonist a gun? And not just a period-accurate flintlock or something, I mean an actual handgun. Let's just say a .45 pistol. If you know more about guns than me you're welcome to imagine something sexier.

I asked a few of my colleagues for their longest-played eligible games—that is, videogames that have an ending, do not feature guns as a common, standard feature throughout their runtime, and could be feasibly impacted by the inclusion of a pistol. Let's see how much time we can save…

On average: Yes, having a gun in games that do not have guns will save you time—and, depending on the game, irrevocably corrupt you. Or make you feel deeply uncomfortable about the parallels that might be drawn to the real world. However, you also might also get to see Genghis Khan with an AK-47. So there's benefits and drawbacks.

2026 games: All the upcoming games
Best PC games: Our all-time favorites
Free PC games: Freebie fest
Best FPS games: Finest gunplay
Best RPGs: Grand adventures
Best co-op games: Better together