How long a game must be? It is a question that many ask for. Is really 6 hours too short? Is more than a 100 hours too long? Gamers, people who are not exactly swimming in money, value each penny. So, every time they buy a game, they demand the most for their money. Which is OK. But what is exactly the gamers putting value at? The time spent?
Many games, like GTA and Skyrim, have lengthy campaigns not because they have plenty to do. They have a lot of walking and backtracking and time spent lost in them. It is not gaming time, it is filler. You are just going from A to B for ten minutes between the good parts. So, the game clock up twenty, 100 hours of you wandering. This is not something I want to put money in.
|Are we there yet?|
Games like Vanquish received a lot of flak by not having a lengthy campaign. Few people asked if those less than six hours where great. If these hours were worth the money. Portal was a short game and yet is subject of praise. Game's length become a selling point. Many games put in the box how long the game is. And that is wrong.
Games must be measured for their quality, for how much entertainment you can pull of it. I am, and I want to believe many gamers are, prepared to give money for a short, yet epic experience. I don't want to pay to walk around virtual worlds for half of the time. Games in the past were shorter and yet many are called 'classics'. Why games of today need to meet an arbitrary extension of time to be good? I don't think they need. before condemning a game for shortness, ask yourself: was this a well spent time?