People complain about short games.

[HyenaThePirate]

A good example of a game that did it 'wrong' was Xenosaga I. I swear, I moved down a corridor, opened a door and got ANOTHER CUT SCENE. I wanted to scream after I realized I was 15 hours into the game and it felt like I was still meeting members of my crew on the starter ship.

Ugh, I totally agree with you on this. I love Japanese games, but sometimes they seriously need to cut down on the exposition vomit (or at least find a way to make it more interactive).

So yeah, usually shorter games = better editing in my experience.

Not to

If I can get 5 bucks per hour of entertainment I am fine (12 hour game give or take). When a game rolls in at 2 or 3 hours and no replayability other than extra difficulty (which usually means enemies have more HP while you have less) then ya I think people should *****. Especially when they dropped 60 bucks. Devs should know people can rent these games for 5 bucks and if they can beat them by the time the game needs to go back (used to be 2 days) they are losing $$$$. And them losing $$$$ is not a good thing for us gamers.

Not to start a fight or anything, but seriously... what was the last game you played that was 2-3 hours long? The shortest decent game I can think of was Portal and depending on how good you are that averaged around 4 hours. Of course you didnt pay $60 for it either, so...

 

[boholikeu]

Not to start a fight or anything, but seriously... what was the last game you played that was 2-3 hours long? The shortest decent game I can think of was Portal and depending on how good you are that averaged around 4 hours. Of course you didnt pay $60 for it either, so...

The Path was the last short game I played, and its length seemed just about right for what it was trying to do. I think I played Braid before that, and it also had pretty good pacing.

I know you'll probably say that these are all cheaper titles, but that's part of my point. I would much rather buy a great 6-hour-game for $20 than a $40 50-hour-game where only 15 of those hours is worthwhile. Time is valuable to me, and I wish developers would stop padding their games with filler just so that they can justify selling it for full price.

edit: dunno if your comment was meant for me or the other guy. I just assumed it was for me because of the way it was formatted.

 

[Boxpopper]

Well if it's cheap or it has alot of replayability I don't mind so much. But something like portal which was short and brilliant I would never have payed the same for that as a full price game. It was good but after you finish it once it's done. You know how to solve the puzzles and I'm not really a big fan getting record times.

Well that gets at my question. Why? For instance, I've played Portal; I think (like many people) that it is an absolutely fantastic game. I would trade a dozen full games for it. And not because I've found so much playtime in it; I've played through it once, and done a few of the challenge chambers, so my total time spent playing it probably amounts to six hours or so.

I might make the argument that I simply enjoyed those six hours much more than the, say, forty I spent pushing through FFVII, but the real point is that I feel like the numbers don't even matter.

Ok look we all agree Portal is great, but considering games are a pastime, and not art you hang on your wall, I would trade Portal for 12 games if I knew I would be spending more time with them.
One factor you have to include in this topic is the difference between "You will spend 200 hours playing this game" and "You have to play for 200 hours to beat this game". Most long games are considered good because we enjoy playing them enough to stick with them for that long.
Trust me, if Portal were the same length as Half Life 2, it would be close to trash. I think the reason it was so successful is that it was inexpensive (part of a great bundle of games priced at the same as single games) and that the developers knew that in order to make the ideas work properly and keep things more interesting it had to be short. When a game is short, it limits the chance of it being repetive.
In short, if I had the choice between Portal, a fun and interesting game that can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours to complete, and Oblivion, a game that most people may never be done with, due to large amounts of side quests and even after that, mods and such, I would never choose Portal. I played Portal for an hour and I was done. The credits went by (a great song along with them) and I closed the game and did something else. Seems kind of anti-climactic, don't you think?

 

[boholikeu]

considering games are a pastime, and not art you hang on your wall,

Even if you don't consider games to be art, I would much rather have 5 hours of gaming bliss than 12 mediocre games that just pass the time. If you really are concerned about getting the most gaming bang for your buck, subscribe to an MMO and get infinite hours of play for $15 a month.

 

[squid5580]

A good example of a game that did it 'wrong' was Xenosaga I. I swear, I moved down a corridor, opened a door and got ANOTHER CUT SCENE. I wanted to scream after I realized I was 15 hours into the game and it felt like I was still meeting members of my crew on the starter ship.

Ugh, I totally agree with you on this. I love Japanese games, but sometimes they seriously need to cut down on the exposition vomit (or at least find a way to make it more interactive).

So yeah, usually shorter games = better editing in my experience.

Not to

If I can get 5 bucks per hour of entertainment I am fine (12 hour game give or take). When a game rolls in at 2 or 3 hours and no replayability other than extra difficulty (which usually means enemies have more HP while you have less) then ya I think people should *****. Especially when they dropped 60 bucks. Devs should know people can rent these games for 5 bucks and if they can beat them by the time the game needs to go back (used to be 2 days) they are losing $$$$. And them losing $$$$ is not a good thing for us gamers.

Not to start a fight or anything, but seriously... what was the last game you played that was 2-3 hours long? The shortest decent game I can think of was Portal and depending on how good you are that averaged around 4 hours. Of course you didnt pay $60 for it either, so...

Actually Terminator Salvation for the 360 was the last 3-4 hour game I played. I probably actually played for about 2 hours in total before I was watching the end credits once you take out the load screens. And it would have been even shorter if my AI team did thier jobs. Although it is not anywhere near a good game it is still selling for 60 bucks. And since it had nothing to do with the movie other than the title there is just no excuse (not even its a movie game). Wolverine tie in game has proven that you can have a good movie game. It may not be perfect but it was fun.

 

[Boxpopper]

considering games are a pastime, and not art you hang on your wall,

Even if you don't consider games to be art, I would much rather have 5 hours of gaming bliss than 12 mediocre games that just pass the time. If you really are concerned about getting the most gaming bang for your buck, subscribe to an MMO and get infinite hours of play for $15 a month.

Well I mean, yes games are an art form, of course, but they are still meant to be played for enjoyment. Which means, if you have a shorter game = less enjoyment. Of course, I'm going to assume that the 12 games are not crap. Trust me, I don't have a job yet, so I don't waste time with crappy games. The last time I spent 40 hours on a "mediocre" game was, um, never. Every game I've spent longer than an hour on I enjoyed every minute of. With crappy games (IE Assassin's Creed) I can't get myself to spend too much time on it.
I'm not saying I'm a time whore, but I'm saying that if you have a good short game and a good long game, the long game wins. It's not entirely important (and definately not important enough to count hour to hour) but I don't like the idea of just throwing it out the window as if it doesn't matter (same thing for the graphics arguement).
Basically, I agree that Portal is good DESPITE its short length, but admit it, it's one of a kind. It's not good because its short, it's good because it's Portal. Any other game that gave me just 3 hours (max) of enjoyment is crap. The main reason I don't like short games only really counts when said game has no multiplayer. With most modern FPS's, the single player campaign can go to hell. I don't care how long it is, I'm going to enjoy multiplayer much more, and spend countless hours on that. If its single-player only, I'm probably going to play it once and shelf it forever.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I said DECENT game..

Terminator Salvation wasn't even a GAME in my opinion.. it was more like a demo that got accidentally PUBLISHED as a "game"

 

[boholikeu]

Well I mean, yes games are an art form, of course, but they are still meant to be played for enjoyment. Which means, if you have a shorter game = less enjoyment. Of course, I'm going to assume that the 12 games are not crap. Trust me, I don't have a job yet, so I don't waste time with crappy games. The last time I spent 40 hours on a "mediocre" game was, um, never. Every game I've spent longer than an hour on I enjoyed every minute of. With crappy games (IE Assassin's Creed) I can't get myself to spend too much time on it.
I'm not saying I'm a time whore, but I'm saying that if you have a good short game and a good long game, the long game wins. It's not entirely important (and definately not important enough to count hour to hour) but I don't like the idea of just throwing it out the window as if it doesn't matter (same thing for the graphics arguement).
Basically, I agree that Portal is good DESPITE its short length, but admit it, it's one of a kind. It's not good because its short, it's good because it's Portal. Any other game that gave me just 3 hours (max) of enjoyment is crap. The main reason I don't like short games only really counts when said game has no multiplayer. With most modern FPS's, the single player campaign can go to hell. I don't care how long it is, I'm going to enjoy multiplayer much more, and spend countless hours on that. If its single-player only, I'm probably going to play it once and shelf it forever.

I guess I just judge games like I judge movies/books. If I read a good 100 page book and a good 600 page book, I don't see the latter as being "better" because it took longer to read and thus provided me with more hours of enjoyment. However, I do judge the 100 page book better if it is shorter because it is more concise and better edited.

 

[CatmanStu]

I realise this thread died nearly a year ago, but I have just watched a review of Splinter Cell: Conviction where they have touted the campaign length to be around 5 hours.

Now to some people that might seem nice and compact giving them a chance to get onto the co-op and online multiplayer portion quicker, but for me £40 is far too much for such a short experience, no matter how good it may turn out.

What I would like to know is; Why don't the publishers give you the option to purchase the single player portion for a reduced price rather than fleecing the people who have no interest in online play to subsidise developement of online game mechanics?

It happened to me with Halo 3 and now it looks like it is going to happen to my other favorite Xbox franchise. On top of all that, it looks like Bethesdas latest game is going to be an online affair as well.

Thank god for Bioware is all I can say; so far they haven't abandoned the single player gamer.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

I prefer long games that have a lot of replayability or a lot to do. Too many games these days rely on online multiplayer which, IMO, isn't a point in the game's favour.

 

[Nouw]

To me there are only: Long Games and VERY VERY LONG ASS GAMES.

It takes me forever to finish the game regardless of length unless it is very long.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I don't mind a game being short, as long as the price-tag on the game reflects that.

When you buy a game like Bladestorm for £40, and it takes days to complete, then you pick up something like Modern Warfare 2 for £55, and finish it in a few hours, you feel kind of ripped off.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

I realise this thread died nearly a year ago, but I have just watched a review of Splinter Cell: Conviction where they have touted the campaign length to be around 5 hours.

Now to some people that might seem nice and compact giving them a chance to get onto the co-op and online multiplayer portion quicker, but for me £40 is far too much for such a short experience, no matter how good it may turn out.

What I would like to know is; Why don't the publishers give you the option to purchase the single player portion for a reduced price rather than fleecing the people who have no interest in online play to subsidise developement of online game mechanics?

It happened to me with Halo 3 and now it looks like it is going to happen to my other favorite Xbox franchise. On top of all that, it looks like Bethesdas latest game is going to be an online affair as well.

Thank god for Bioware is all I can say; so far they haven't abandoned the single player gamer.

5 hours? That's awful, why would anyone pick that up over Batman or Metal Gear?
Even if you have and completed them both 5 for a big game like Splinter Cell is just unacceptable.

 

[Iwata]

As someone else has pointed out in another thread, MW2, the short-game of the moment, offers a money/fun ratio of over 10 bucks per hour of the single-player campaign.

That is inexcusable.

 

[elbowlick]

I might get some ire from the community here, but in Okami after beating the third boss I honestly expected the game to be done. It felt like it was long enough but then the game kept on going. I checked online and it turned out there were about five more bosses so I eventually I put the controller down and never picked up since. I think I had a problem with not having a clear antagonist after that I didn't think I had a reason other than looking at a few more monsters (since they are very well designed) and getting some glaives.

I'll also mention Bioshock just because it should've ended at Fort Frolic since it just went downhill from there.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Any game that forces me to take time out of the main story in order to level my character/weapons up, so that I can advance is just trying to stretch game time. I should be able to get stronger naturally and not be forced to take extra time to level up. I see this mostly in JRPGs, and it needs to stop. It does happen else where, it is just more prominent there.

As for too short, I would rather have a few hours of awesome game experience than twenty hours of padded game play (read above paragraph).

in which i respect that, but alot of people like this, grinding suprisingly sounds stupid, but i like doing it to get lots of goodies from baddies and being super OP so i can go into story battles as a rape fest

personally i like short games, as long as they are good, i dont like SUPER long games that often, like oblivion and fallout, my goodness give it a break already, sidequest galore? jesus christ almighty some of them are just so trivial and stupid but it constantly annoys me searching for the good quests in my journal thingy their are so many repetitive and unrewarding ones in there

 

[Davrel]

Length is only an issue when combined with quality of content in a negative manner.

People generaly won't complain about a game being 'too long' because if extended longevity happens to be a negative, its probably because the content is crap or handled badly and you'd rather not be doing it in the first place.

 

[MetaKnight19]

I don't think it matters how long a game is, as long as it is enjoyable and has an engaging story then the longevity shouldn't really be an issue. A good example for me was the Klonoa remake for the Wii.

A short game, I beat it in a single sitting, but it was a great game so I didn't care that it was short. Some of the levels were cool, the visuals and musical score are I think some of the best the Wii game library has to offer, especially the last level. The one major flaw in the game is the cutscenes, some of the character models look atrocious close up, the color pallet is too basic for its own good, and the voice acting is probably just as bad.

But I stuck with it because of the surprisingly good story it had, although it doesn't really kick in properly until about 3/4 the way through the game, and the twist caught me totally off-guard.

 

[Piorn]

I don't really care about the lenght as long as the story is believable and neither rushed nor stretched.
Yet, there is one thing I absolutely love about stories: When a plot with a certain goal is clearly visible from the beginning, but upon completion, it turns out that this is by no means the end of the story, and it shifts the athmospere and the settings etc. It makes the story feel much longer and fresher.
Example:

Spoiler

Tales of Symphonia
Though one might argue about the games qualities, I certainly liked the plot twist that pushed the plot from a standard save the world scenario to a more serious but equally immersive story