People complain about short games.

[Artemis923]

It's good sometimes to be able to play a game that won't take too long. Short and sweet. Like Conan.

Conan kicks ass.

I saw it at Game Carzy fer $10.

Best $10 I've spent in some time.

I prefer longer games, as long as they are done well. But even then, I prefer a game that's too long to one that's too short. Like Resi 5. $60+ bucks down the drain for an afternoon of gameplay.

 

[Gamer137]

If I ran the industry in some kind of dictatorship, I would declare that all games must be at least three hours long for every $5 it costs. Since most games are at least $50, almost every game would have to be at least thirty hours long. There would be no excuses for shorter lengths because the graphics are expensive. Exceptions for multiplayer and other things would have a very strict criteria.

I am sick of paying $60 for ten hour games. Movies cost $7-$10 for two hours. At that price, these ten hour games should cost $35.

 

[Danman1]

I think people who play longer games like the immersion. Those who don't like multiplayer. While that may sound like a vast generalization ask yourself this- a 40 hours of gameplay innovative action rpg story driven game, a game with 2 hours of 'story' and one of the best multiplayer options available, and a 2 hour single player game with no real story or innovation are on a shelf? How many would pick the epic single player game, the badass multiplayer game, or the Wii game(it's just too easy)?

 

[PeaceFistCreations]

Before I had a job, when I brought a brand new game and I beat it in two or three days of none stop play through, I'd be so pissed off and feel like I've wasted my money.
Now that I have a full time job, its just the opposite. I buy a brand new game, and I can only put several hours into playing it a day, so it takes forever to beat, and I feel guilty for still not having beat it. This usually ruins games for me.
Now a five hour game is still ridiculous, but games defiantly don't need to be forty hours long to be good.

 

[Ravenhood]

When it comes to complaints about shorter games, people probably feel as though they don't get their money's worth for a shorter gaming experience... they want something that will last them a decent amount of time, continues to give them enjoyment, etc.
For complaints about longer games though... or, more appropriately, the lack thereof, it's the contrary to what I said about shorter games. However, it likely varies from person to person. For me, I'm perfectly fine with 10-ish hours for a game, and that's partially based on two things. One, that I have a relatively short attention span, and two, that I don't always have the time to invest in a longer title.

So, long answer made short, these complaints or lack of complaints really depends on the individual... be it time investment, or quality assurance factors (I played Mass Effect for 30 hours so far... still have two more playthroughs; Okami has at least 60 hours on one playthrough; both of those are favorites for me, so I took the time to play those to death), it'll always be a matter of personal preference.

 

[mooncalf]

The more time we can spend procrastinating, away from the things we should be doing, the better.

 

[DueAccident]

If I ran the industry in some kind of dictatorship, I would declare that all games must be at least three hours long for every $5 it costs. Since most games are at least $50, almost every game would have to be at least thirty hours long. There would be no excuses for shorter lengths because the graphics are expensive. Exceptions for multiplayer and other things would have a very strict criteria.

I am sick of paying $60 for ten hour games. Movies cost $7-$10 for two hours. At that price, these ten hour games should cost $35.

That would lead to creators just squeezing as much, very easy life-extending features into a game, so that they can say, yup, it's 45 hours, so that means we can charge 15$ extra.

It works both ways, and unfortunately, it works horrendously in practice, I imagine. Can you imagine walking around the game, fantastic as it may be, "Derek calling; want to play darts?", while you have to say "no, sorry Derek, I need to level 5 times before I can progress with the main quest first" and various other awful time-extenders.

 

[Gamer137]

That would lead to creators just squeezing as much, very easy life-extending features into a game, so that they can say, yup, it's 45 hours, so that means we can charge 15$ extra.

It works both ways, and unfortunately, it works horrendously in practice, I imagine. Can you imagine walking around the game, fantastic as it may be, "Derek calling; want to play darts?", while you have to say "no, sorry Derek, I need to level 5 times before I can progress with the main quest first" and various other awful time-extenders.

A. Mutliplayer and other things that arguably increase replayability would fill in the time.
B. Developers of short games can always just lower the release date price.

No one likes filler content and useless side missions. However, charging full price for something that deserves to be priced less is not excusable.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

How many games honestly though are still innovative and refreshing after 30 hours of game play that aren't RPGS? Even then, after that time frame, most RPGs have long since expanded their combat system to it's fullest and adding a 4th iteration of a water spell making it even MORE splashy and watery is just a cosmetic solution. But many games fail in this, that any originality in the game play maxes out at around hour 10, and from that point on it's just finding ways to artificially extend that time.

Again GTA IV is a prime example... Honestly I felt that I had reached the ultimate in my abilities around 12 hours, and from then on it seemed like one tedious mission after another, each one with some artificially ramped up level of difficulty that was meant to make the game seem longer by making the missions harder, even though you arent really doing anything different than you were doing in the first 5 hours. Go here, kill "x" person, but oh noes, this time when you get within 2 BLOCKS of the guy, he magically somehow knows you are coming and jumps into a car that at any other time handles like a fat girl on roller skates on an icy day in Chicago but for HIM seems to manuever with the superior handling and control of a luxury sports car on the autobahn. Proceed then to chase aforementioned driver who has suddenly become Jason Bourne behind the wheel, until one of the 5 million officers on the city's police force that appear to just sit on every corner waiting for a high speed shootout to fly by gets on your tail, then calls in chopper support and the incredible hulk to stop you from dealing with your original target whose car is made out of adamantium considering how many bullets you've poured into it up to this point. Finally at some point after having to switch 5 different vehicles, killing your target, and ditching the cops by swimming halfway to San Andreas, you get a call from some "friend" who wants to go see Kat Williams at the comedy club for the 20th time that day, to fill the gap until you go to do another mission that turns out the exact same way.
The thing is, I thought GTA IV's story was great enough that it didnt NEED to be so long and filled with tedium.
Give me a short and sweet game that rocks my socks any day than some 30 hour epic that I'll never finish because I get bored halfway through and never go back.

 

[DueAccident]

That would lead to creators just squeezing as much, very easy life-extending features into a game, so that they can say, yup, it's 45 hours, so that means we can charge 15$ extra.

It works both ways, and unfortunately, it works horrendously in practice, I imagine. Can you imagine walking around the game, fantastic as it may be, "Derek calling; want to play darts?", while you have to say "no, sorry Derek, I need to level 5 times before I can progress with the main quest first" and various other awful time-extenders.

A. Mutliplayer and other things that arguably increase replayability would fill in the time.
B. Developers of short games can always just lower the release date price.

No one likes filler content and useless side missions. However, charging full price for something that deserves to be priced less is not excusable.

No offence, but I don't think you quite understand my point, mate?
I'm saying, a developer will make their game, all fine and dandy, and then think "hey, if we chuck in a few extra hours of filler, we'll be able to charge another $5" (according to your system of dollars to hour ratio.) You are saying they should only be able to charge a maximum amount for 'x' amount or hours. I'm saying they will expand their game in every way possible for the extra few $ off each game.

This would of course lower game standards horrifically if there was that much filler. But it's what would happen, as any games producer wants to make as much money as possible.

 

[fenrizz]

Again GTA IV is a prime example... Honestly I felt that I had reached the ultimate in my abilities around 12 hours, and from then on it seemed like one tedious mission after another, each one with some artificially ramped up level of difficulty that was meant to make the game seem longer by making the missions harder, even though you arent really doing anything different than you were doing in the first 5 hours. Go here, kill "x" person, but oh noes, this time when you get within 2 BLOCKS of the guy, he magically somehow knows you are coming and jumps into a car that at any other time handles like a fat girl on roller skates on an icy day in Chicago but for HIM seems to manuever with the superior handling and control of a luxury sports car on the autobahn. Proceed then to chase aforementioned driver who has suddenly become Jason Bourne behind the wheel, until one of the 5 million officers on the city's police force that appear to just sit on every corner waiting for a high speed shootout to fly by gets on your tail, then calls in chopper support and the incredible hulk to stop you from dealing with your original target whose car is made out of adamantium considering how many bullets you've poured into it up to this point. Finally at some point after having to switch 5 different vehicles, killing your target, and ditching the cops by swimming halfway to San Andreas, you get a call from some "friend" who wants to go see Kat Williams at the comedy club for the 20th time that day, to fill the gap until you go to do another mission that turns out the exact same way.

And this is exactly why I never finished GTA IV.

OT: I have no problem with short games (I love you Portal!), or long games. What matters to me is quality and gameplay.
With 2 kids and a full time job, I rarely have much time to play anyway.

 

[Gamer137]

No offence, but I don't think you quite understand my point, mate?
I'm saying, a developer will make their game, all fine and dandy, and then think "hey, if we chuck in a few extra hours of filler, we'll be able to charge another $5" (according to your system of dollars to hour ratio.) You are saying they should only be able to charge a maximum amount for 'x' amount or hours. I'm saying they will expand their game in every way possible for the extra few $ off each game.

This would of course lower game standards horrifically if there was that much filler. But it's what would happen, as any games producer wants to make as much money as possible.

Now I'm seeing the point. I guess it would be abused, and I really can't think of anything to respond with.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

And this is exactly why I never finished GTA IV.

OT: I have no problem with short games (I love you Portal!), or long games. What matters to me is quality and gameplay.
With 2 kids and a full time job, I rarely have much time to play anyway.

Exactly.
Honestly I think the only people who complain about games being too short are people with ample amounts of free time on their hands.
Games that take some people a day or two to beat fail to mention how they probably played 6-8 hours EACH day. I dont have that kind of time.
It took me a week of playing to beat Conan and thats a relatively short game, but I only play maybe two hours a night.

 

[Delicious]

Games can be short, just let me go back and replay the specific parts that I liked.

RE5 was great in this respect, even though it technically wasn't that short.

 

[Valiance]

I truly love "short" games, especially those that are "easy to learn, somewhat challenging to finish, and difficult to master" like Mirror's Edge, Braid, Ikaruga, etc...

Like, ME, it's possible to finish it in 8-10 hours if you don't do time trials.

Braid, it's possible to spend a little bit of time playing, and then the rest of your time thinking about the puzzles that you're stuck on in other places during the day, come home and work on it, and finish the game in 2-3 hours. Then the game gives you speed runs and for those clever enough to discover them, the stars to collect, which are a huge timesink (Even if you cheat and look up where they are, one of them takes 90-100 minutes to get, and most of the others require extremely difficult and skillful play.)

Ikaruga, you can play on easy and do relatively fine - while it's difficult, it's not impossible...But S or S+ ranking stages on hard is incredibly hard.

Portal, like these other games, I found to be a refreshing, mildly unique, fun experience. And I'm glad it didn't go on much longer, because people again, say it's "short" but there's the advanced test chambers and again, the games support for speed runs and downloaded maps.

Games like this are great - they are fun, unique, and the experience starts to get "old" just before you beat it. Imagine if Mirror's Edge dragged on for 10 more hours? I'd prefer less content that is perfected than more content that was rushed and unpolished.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I truly love "short" games, especially those that are "easy to learn, somewhat challenging to finish, and difficult to master" like Mirror's Edge, Braid, Ikaruga, etc...

Like, ME, it's possible to finish it in 8-10 hours if you don't do time trials.

Braid, it's possible to spend a little bit of time playing, and then the rest of your time thinking about the puzzles that you're stuck on in other places during the day, come home and work on it, and finish the game in 2-3 hours. Then the game gives you speed runs and for those clever enough to discover them, the stars to collect, which are a huge timesink (Even if you cheat and look up where they are, one of them takes 90-100 minutes to get, and most of the others require extremely difficult and skillful play.)

Ikaruga, you can play on easy and do relatively fine - while it's difficult, it's not impossible...But S or S+ ranking stages on hard is incredibly hard.

Portal, like these other games, I found to be a refreshing, mildly unique, fun experience. And I'm glad it didn't go on much longer, because people again, say it's "short" but there's the advanced test chambers and again, the games support for speed runs and downloaded maps.

Games like this are great - they are fun, unique, and the experience starts to get "old" just before you beat it. Imagine if Mirror's Edge dragged on for 10 more hours? I'd prefer less content that is perfected than more content that was rushed and unpolished.

QFT

 

[Valiance]

I truly love "short" games, especially those that are "easy to learn, somewhat challenging to finish, and difficult to master" like Mirror's Edge, Braid, Ikaruga, etc...

Like, ME, it's possible to finish it in 8-10 hours if you don't do time trials.

Braid, it's possible to spend a little bit of time playing, and then the rest of your time thinking about the puzzles that you're stuck on in other places during the day, come home and work on it, and finish the game in 2-3 hours. Then the game gives you speed runs and for those clever enough to discover them, the stars to collect, which are a huge timesink (Even if you cheat and look up where they are, one of them takes 90-100 minutes to get, and most of the others require extremely difficult and skillful play.)

Ikaruga, you can play on easy and do relatively fine - while it's difficult, it's not impossible...But S or S+ ranking stages on hard is incredibly hard.

Portal, like these other games, I found to be a refreshing, mildly unique, fun experience. And I'm glad it didn't go on much longer, because people again, say it's "short" but there's the advanced test chambers and again, the games support for speed runs and downloaded maps.

Games like this are great - they are fun, unique, and the experience starts to get "old" just before you beat it. Imagine if Mirror's Edge dragged on for 10 more hours? I'd prefer less content that is perfected than more content that was rushed and unpolished.

QFT

Wow, I'm glad someone read that.

 

[DueAccident]

Oh, I read it and agree; it's fun to have some games that are just shorter, full-fun games you can finish in a reasonable amount of time.

And your point on ME lasting 10 more hours makes me wince, so I agree entirely on that one.