Poll: Is a game that can be completed in a single day/session a bad game?

[Lufia Erim]

Look at the poll. I know the first thing people are gonna do is scream "PORTAL". Well i think that portal is the exception that proves the rule. That game has a little replay value as well as extra challenges and the game price at release was pretty low ( as a stand alone game ) or practically free in the orange box. I'm pretty sure if it came out as a 60$ game it would have gotten backlash.

So my question is : Do you think that a game that could be completed in a single day/session is a bad game?

 

[tippy2k2]

Define "session" (For the sake of the answer, I will assume 12 hours or so since that would be a full day of gaming)

But no, length alone is not an indicator of good or badness. I would rather play an incredibly polished and excellent 10 hour game then to play the same game that was stretched out to 15 because "it wasn't long enough" (and I do not replay games so replayability has almost zero impact on my opinions). A bad game doesn't become a 9/10 because I got it for free and a good game doesn't become a 6/10 because I paid more for it than I wanted to. The price might dictate how happy or unhappy I am with the purchase itself but the price doesn't affect how good or bad the game is.

It will factor in when I'm buying of course but it is not the sole factor.

 

[someguy1231]

For me, it depends on the game and how much money I paid. I got South Park: The Stick of Truth for $13 during a Steam Sale, and unlocked every achievement in about 15 hours. I was largely happy with my purchase, but if I had paid the full $60 for that, I would have been very disappointed.

 

[Skatologist]

I vote "no" simply based on how often if I beat a game in one sitting, it's usually because I was engaged enough with said game to actually want to continue playing it and not need/want a break.

It doesn't make a game bad if its price too highly either. Its a bad game if its a bad game. If you buy a good game that can be beaten in three hours with little replay value its a good game, whether you bought it for $2 or $20. Its a bad purchase if you get it at too high of a price, but that has no bearing on whether the game was actually any good or not.

So much this. Good games don't become bad when they're overpriced and bad games don't become good when they're on sale/free.

 

[StatusNil]

It doesn't make a game bad if its price too highly either. Its a bad game if its a bad game. If you buy a good game that can be beaten in three hours with little replay value its a good game, whether you bought it for $2 or $20. Its a bad purchase if you get it at too high of a price, but that has no bearing on whether the game was actually any good or not.

So much this. Good games don't become bad when they're overpriced and bad games don't become good when they're on sale/free.

Eh, I'd argue that the price is in fact a part of the presentation of the work, and thus a crucial part of the context. It's hard to be in an appreciative mood when you feel you've been taken in like a rube. Therefore I'm voting option 4.

 

[CritialGaming]

I think so long as the game is a fun experience for however long it lasts, then it's fine. There are a lot of examples of fairly short games that made for wonderful and interesting experiences. Off the top of my head, Bastion comes to mind as a good example.

A game like Portal had the advantage of coming with a box of other games. Portal 2 did, in fact, get some shit for it's short length and 60 dollar price tag. Even though the production value of Portal 2 was stellar. People have a weird cost versus length relationship with a game.

Why are you people pissed that a 60 dollar game only lasts 8 hours? I spent 60 bucks to see a 2 hour movie with a girl. 8 hours is a fucking bargain.

 

[NPC009]

A bad pricetag doesn't make it a bad game. Depeding on how high it was, I'd be more than a little annoyed, but if the game was in fact a game game, I'd still recommend it to other people but warn them to wait for price drop.

 

[Rip Van Rabbit]

Absolutely not.

Gameplay length is a very limiting factor when trying to decide the quality of a game. Replayability, varied gameplay content, story, general pacing and subjective enjoyability to the individual playing are more valued attributes to consider.

The "Roguelike" genre (generally) offers small gameplay sessions in favour of higher learning curves, greater difficulty, replayability and procedurally generated content to offer new experiences with a greater sense of focus. Meanwhile, still allowing the player to finish a playthrough and decide whether they wish to continue for another go. Examples would include: FTL, Risk of Rain, The Binding of Isaac & Rogue Legacy. Relatively short games by conventional standards, but each contain many incentives to start another playthrough.

The price of a game is a factor, but a very small one I feel. There can be plenty of instances where full price expansive 60+ hour games feel like an absolute waste. Alternatively, a strictly linear and short game can be more engaging due to a sense of focus over freedom. The reverse also applies, but like I said, pricing is one of the smaller factors to take into consideration.

A game's quality is not decided by length and price alone.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Quite a few of my favorite games can be beaten in a single day (granted, I rarely play them long enough in a day to pull that off). Sure, I've also played through most of those games so many times that they end up running up enough hours to count for a "long-enough" game, but I hardly finished those games and though to myself, "Boy was I ripped off. I need to play through it again to get my money's worth." I played through those games again because I loved them my first time through and was fully satisfied.

So no, I don't think being able to be beaten in a day is a major problem for a game.

Why are you people pissed that a 60 dollar game only lasts 8 hours? I spent 60 bucks to see a 2 hour movie with a girl. 8 hours is a fucking bargain.

It probably has to do with how there are high-quality games that last 20+ hours for the same price, with some even reaching the 100+ hour mark. If that's used as the standard, then an 8 hour game will seem very short. Comparatively, 2-3 hours is rather standard for a movie. As a result, expectations are likely very different.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Nope, I bought Vanquish on release day and I rank it as the 2nd best game of last-gen and it's only 6-8 hours long.

 

[Redryhno]

Depends on a lot of factors, as a general rule though, no, length alone doesn't invalidate a game from my list of acceptables. But there's many games that overstay their welcome or refuse to expand past a certain point, and they're becoming slightly more common. But a short game often exacerbates the problems of being too easy, too expensive, or too simplistic, so it has a bit more weight if it's with a bad game.

Then you're got to factor in genre and how difficult the game is. There's alot of retro games that are really damn good, but can be incredibly short experiences if you know how to do everything. And there's also newer games that are designed to not be beaten on the first try.

However, I think length is a pretty good indicator of a game's quality at the moment. There's always exceptions, and I"m sure I'll get them shoved in my face even if I probably already know about them, but as a general rule, 30+ bucks for 6-8 hours is a pretty steep price as far as I'm concerned, and one I'm not really willing to recommend to anyone.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't remember the last time I beat a game in one sitting. But I don't think it matters how long it takes.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

No. A game can be good or even awesome and still only last as long as a single session takes. That type of game is a very rare breed to me, however. Stuff like Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance comes to mind when I think of possible examples.

 

[Evonisia]

Length and pricing do not fully determine a game's quality. They can determine a player's expectations, though, which leads in to the issue of "I didn't like it/think it was worth it therefore it's bad" (an attitude I truly despise).

If a game's good, a game's good. Length is only a factor to quality if the game isn't paced right. Portal was paced perfectly, Portal 2? Not so much. Obligatory anecdotal silliness: I beat Call of Duty: Black Ops II's campaign in a single setting, and while it could have given itself soom room to breathe, I would say it was a great campaign. Also beat Halo 4 in a single sitting, and length certainly wasn't the issue with that game.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

No. Star Fox 64 is one of my all-time favourites and it can be completed in half an hour if you choose the quick and easy path bottom route and don't die. The replay value lay in accessing all the different worlds and routes, then in earning medals for each level, and then doing it all again on Expert Mode, because that was still fun to try. Same thing with the Clock Tower games- you can finish them in half an hour if you go for the worst ending and just let everyone get murdered then die yourself. Quantity over quality though- lots of people slagged The Order 1886 for being completable in 5 hours, but that's probably because even if it had branching routes or higher difficulty settings or special challenges, it's not something they wanted to experience again in any fashion. Speedrunners could probably finish any game in one session.

Now if a game had no such replay value or multiplayer, you'd be hard-pressed to justify charging full price for it, but that's what the online market is for. My brother loves buying games on sale for less than $5, and even if they were short (and Age of Wonders 3 is not short), he wouldn't feel ripped off.

 

[Silence]

No. A good game can tale 5 minutes, or 2 hours, or longer.

It should, however, go without saying, that a 5 minute game should be cheap or completely free, and a 2 hour game should also not cost more than 15 or 20 euros.

edit: Speedrun routes not included. lol

 

[Mikeybb]

Option 3 and 4, but provisionally so as too much is dependent on circumstance.

A one play through game sensibly priced is something I'm happy to get behind.
Of course, the concept of a sensible price is entirely subjective and varies not only per customer, but per developer too.
A developer with a proven track record of providing a solid, enthralling three hour game that only tolerates a single play through due to either story elements or mechanical ones could be valued more highly by a customer based solely on that reputation compared to an unknown developer or one with a more mediocre reputation.

I'm not a prolific purchaser of vignette style games, if that's what such short play time titles are called (I may be mixing up categories here), but I'm not one to avoid them outright either.
Some do get my attention.
The Stanley Parable leaps to mind foremost, though it did have a significant and clever method of compelling replay, with truly entertaining voice work by the narrator.

My personal upper limit for such short games seems to fall around the four to five pounds bracket (admittedly, I made a very rare exception with the Stanley Parable).
I base this partly on experience, insofar as that price paid on some short one shot games did not leave me feeling a sense of buyers remorse, and partly on comparison to the cost of a cinema ticket.

That said, I've seen movies and felt buyers remorse over ticket price.
Yes.
I'm looking right at you 'the happening'.

 

[000Ronald]

Look at the poll. I know the first thing people are gonna do is scream "PORTAL". Well i think that portal is the exception that proves the rule. That game has a little replay value as well as extra challenges and the game price at release was pretty low ( as a stand alone game ) or practically free in the orange box. I'm pretty sure if it came out as a 60$ game it would have gotten backlash.

So my question is : Do you think that a game that could be completed in a single day/session is a bad game?

Since classic games have already been brought up, what about fighting games? I know that some of them have story modes, but those are just window dressing. And even with that, I can still beat every character's path in Soul Calibur 3 if I focus hard enough.

And the point about fighting games belays a much larger point; what about games that don't have a set completion point? Puzzle games, like tetris or...I don't know, cooking mama? Simulation games, like The Sims or any number of hunting games? What about all of these first-person shooters that are so popular? Are you going to take their multiplayer into account?

In short, no. Your question is wrong, and is leading.