Short Games? I don't care!
 

Am I the only one that doesn't mind games that are short? I don't mind as long as they are fun. Especially since I have so many games to catch up on and I don't have a million hours to play.

I always read about people complaining that this or that game is too short. But it doesn't bother me!

That's my 2 cents for the day.

It's about money for me.

Why should I spend $50 on a 6-10 hour game when I can get more bang for my buck with a 20-30 hour game?

That being said, I have no other problem with short games. I just don't buy them. Thank goodness for rental stores.

I've said this before in other threads, but I'm kinda glad Jade Empire was relatively short. In a few months, it means I'll probably play through it again (with a different character). Otherwise, it'd probably sit in my stack of unfinished games, or games that I finished once but won't get rid of because I somehow think I'm going to go through them again, even though I never will.

Now if we're talking 5-6 hours short, that's too short for me. But 15-20 hours, that a decent enough amount of time for me.

Short is fine if it has replay value like Resident Evil 4, but if its 10 hours and you will never play it again it is not worth more than $20.

Yep, money for me as well.

I don't like to spend more than $2 an hour of gameplay most of the time.

And to counter the argument that movies are more expensive by that standard:

1. I enjoy movies more than games.
2. I watch movies repeatedly over the years, most games I beat once and never touch again.

That said, a 20 hour or so game is ideal for me. Longer games I tend to get tired of before finishing, shorter games aren't worth the money until they drop to under $20.

What people fail to take into account when noting how long a game is:
1) Was it fun to play? Fun enough to replay? If it's not fun (or worse, if it's frustrating), who cares how long it is?
2) Was it artificially lengthened? For example, Dragon Warrior 1 is a pretty short game, originally made insanely long because it forced you to level up a ton. (in comparison, the easier GBA version was a breeze)
3) You can't really compare the lengths and costs of different genres of games. For example, I could probably play ESPN NBA or NFL forever, if they never came out with new versions. That's pretty much hundreds and hundreds of hours for 20 bucks. Nothing's going to compare to that. Otherwise, sports games and rpgs are by far the best bang for your buck, and you'd never buy anything else.

I'm sorry but this is hilarious

:lol: No offense, but it strikes me as funny that you have a quantitative number set on the amount of gameplay you must pay for. How do you know how long the game will take you until you play it? Afterall, some people will cruise through a game as quick as they possibly can just because they can. But whatever floats your boat. :)

Anyway, it's since I don't have much time for games anymore, I treasure quality over quantity. If it has both that's great, but give me quality anyday.

I just go by reviews and impressions on the length.

And it's more a case if I buy a game for $40 and get less than 20 hours of fun gameplay out of it, that I feel ripped off. Rather than conciously thinking about it before hand.

Plus, what can I say. I'm a researcher. I live in a quantitative world. :D

I actually prefer shorter games since i don't have the time and patience to dedicate to long-ass games.I would rather the game be short and i actually make it to the end than a long game where i end up giving up and never get to finish it.

I prefer a solid and tight 10-20 hour game myself. It's a time thing. If all games packed as much punch (for the length of the game) as Beyond Good and Evil, I would be one happy gamer. And I don't buy a game (5 hours of play time or 500) until it's close to a $20 price tage with few exceptions.

In general shorter, but an occasional really great 80 hr game doesn't hurt either.

I find myself spending probably the same amount on games/hardware as I did as a kid, but these days its more like 2-3% of income instead of 50-100%. Also I'm getting more games, remember how much a genesis/snes rpg used to cost? Twice as much as FFXII will cost when it comes out. And thats before it hits greatest hits and discount bins etc. Other games get slashed only a month after coming out...

So cost is just not an issue. Time is by far my biggest problem. I used to be able to comfortably fit 2-3 hrs gaming a day in, but these days it's more like 2-5 in a week and only on a weekend. So obviously I'm all over quality over quantity. And an outstanding 10 hour game will always get my vote over a decent 40 hour game.

You shouldn't spend $50 on any games, why are people still spending $50 on games, they can easily be had much cheaper.

I don't mind shorter games, I usually prefer a 10 hour game to a 30+. Games 30 hours + tend to drag on for me, especially since that can be two months of gameplay. I like to experience a lot of different games, so I would rather the experience be quick and great every minute (Beyond Good & Evil) rather than artifically lengthened.

I personally prefer shorter games. The only games that are more than 20 hours long are RPGs. I cannot think of a single non-RPG that is more than 20 hours long. Personally, 50 hour RPGs are too long and drawn out for me. I get bored with the story halfway through the game. Give me a fast paced action game anyday.

I completely agree.

I haven't played many games (RPG or otherwise) where a long single-player campaign hasn't felt tedious by the end. Right now I'm working through Skies of Arcadia: Legends, and at this point, it really does feel like "work" more than anything else. It was a neat game at first, but it's just starting to drag on a bit.

Pikmin 2 is suffering a similar fate. I absolutely loved the first game, but the second one is hampered by tedious, boring caves that exist soley to extend the time you're playing. I'm at the point where I have to complete three more caves and I've one the game (unless more pops up later), and I just don't want to bother, as the last few caves went on for WAY too long, and each one so far has been longer than the last. I just can't see myself suffering through these last ones.

Sometimes I like short games.
I don't like paying 50 bucks for short games.
If I can pay 15-20, and get 1 or 2 12-20 hour plays, and enjoy it all, I'm satisfied.
I'm also primarily into RPG's, and some of them take 30, 40, 50+ hours to play. My Nocturne save is 55 hours and I'm maybe 2/3 of the way done, and not even 'maxing' everything out. I'm playing Digital Devil Saga now, and I'm glad it's supposed to be a little shorter.
And yes, sometimes by that 40-50 hour mark, I'm ready for it to be done and move on.
I'm in the same boat as Chris D. I usually buy games used/on sale/cheaply, except for a special few, and I don't buy enough to break the bank. But between work, family, games, and dvds, especially tv-on-dvd which can be 900+ minutes, time is the important thing. I have watched DVDs on fast forward before just to 'watch' them.
I 'quantify' it as well--if it cost me more than 1/1.50 an hour, and didn't kick ass, I'm somewhat disappointed. Of course, like has been said before, I'd rather play a great 5-10 hour game, than a dragged out, stretched out, padded 20-30 hour game--but I prefer not to pay 40-50 bucks for either of them.
Too many games/dvds, not enough time.

I agree on all counts... there is absolutely no reason to drop $50 on a game, with the deals at GameRush and some of the others, I can own a game cheaper than renting them, decide if I like one and want to keep it or trade it, etc. I get to play a lot of different games and only spend time on those that I really like

Ditto. I like 20+ hour games, but only if the 20 hours is 20 hours of fun gameplay.

It's like the steak analogy that comes up in these discussions. I'd take the 8 oz perfect steak over the 16oz mediocre one at the same price, but I'd damn sure rather have a perfect 16oz one over a perfect 8oz one!

If it's fun, I don't really care...as long as it's in the 10-hour range, I'm good. I don't have 20+ hours to devote to gaming any longer. If I can't beat it in 10-15, I'm usually moving on to the next one.

And I don't mind buying at $50. I just sell them on eBay if I don't want to keep it. I've come close to breaking even more than a few times.

And while $50 vs $20 might seem like a big difference, I'll easily spend $40-$50 if my wife, son and I go out to dinner pretty much anywhere, so I don't get too hung up on tens of dollars.

I don't necessarily get 'hung up' on it, I just try to stretch the dollar and get a game I want as cheaply as possible, though I am willing to pay for 'quality' if it's not likely I can find it cheaper, and I want it now or soon. Plus, saving that 10-30 bucks on the game, means we can go out to eat one more time :)
I rarely sell/trade games, half the time I end up wanting to play them again six months down the road. I do sell/trade some, that I just don't enjoy, and on Half.com, I've almost always broken even or made money ['break even' on a game sale to me is selling it for no more than 7 bucks less than I paid for it, since a rental is 6.50, I call that 'even'.]

I don't care that much usually. The money argument is silly cuz you can always just buy games used off ebay or rent them for a week. If the game is really good and it 'feels' short, then it'll bother me a little - but only the same way a good movie leaves me wanting more, not because of some financial value I've placed on my entertainment per unit of time. I like games in the 8 to 20 hour range... and actually, games that are too long are kinda lame. 100+ hours into some final fantasy game and all you've been doing is building your exp in the desert killing the same stupid creatures.

Usually when a game feels too short, I can say that it needs one more chapter or something... Chronicles of Riddick was short (in terms of time, I completed it in a relatively short period of time), but didn't need anything - it was perfect.

However there are more great 10-20hrs games than 40-80 hr ones. I mean there are very few games that are consistently great for a full 40-80 hours. Even the best long rpgs typically have a slow point in the middle and take a while to warm up, as much as 5-10 hrs sometimes. So in the case where time is a more precious commodity than money, then I'm probably better off playing a shorter game.

Having said that, Fable is short (so I hear), but I played that for 5 hrs and decided it stunk. So short is not automatically better, but you need to consider the overall game experience.

I'm fine with 20 hour games. Any shorter than that and I get a little annoyed if I payed more than $20. But that's rare and as long as a game I got for $20 lasts 10 hours I'm fine.

I don't really care that there are few good 20+ hour game these days as my times limited and 4 or 5 20+ hour games a year are pretty much a enough to occupy my gaming time with a rental here or there.

One interesting thing to consider is causation. Namely, why are long games long? In most cases, it's certainly not organic, i.e., it's not because the story warrants the length. I think it's market-driven. Traditionally, games are sold mostly to kids. Kids don't have much money, so their parents pay for the games. But kids do have a lot of time, which their parents have to fill somehow without going broke. So game length starts to matter. As a result, longer games start to sell better, which in turn means that developers start to develop longer games. Longer games mean more levels, more art, more music--in short, more development time--which in turn raises production costs. And that raises game prices.

So why don't some developers create shorter games and price them lower? Because in a market that operates on a fixed pricing model, the stigma of the "budget title" attaches to any game released at a lower price point. Look at NFL2K4 (or was it ESPN?). A lot of people didn't buy it because it seemed too cheap to compete with Madden, despite many reviews saying otherwise.

Personally, I would love for the industry to shift more towards shorter games with better, less padded stories, especially if they cost less. The ideal for me would be 5-10 hour games prices at $10-$20 MSRP. But even if they didn't cost less--I've never turned down going to see a movie because it was too short (the idea just seems absurd), and I wouldn't do it with games either.

I actually think that something like this has to happen, especially if the industry wants to capture more mainstream gamers who don't want to devote their lives to gaming but want to experience story-driven games.

Since I'm not a Professional player like many of you a short game ends up being a long game for me anyway so it makes no difference. All I can say is thank gawd for save points......

Actually, illenium, I would think it's the exact opposite. The average gamer is older than he used to be--last I saw, the average age is 28 or so, skewing slightly younger for various consoles [Nintendo, specifically]. These folks are more likely to: buy games themselves rather than having their parents buy them; have greater disposable income; other demands on their time/money/interest; and be more likely to try to quantify their spending [though perhaps not to the extent some of us do.] This can also be seen in the massive growth of M-rated, cinematic-style games, that tell an in-depth, sometimes complex story.

I would personally think that if 'kids' [say, 15 and under] were the biggest target market, games would be shorter and more expensive. Because once little Johnny finishes an 8-10 hour Mario game, he then goes to Mommy and Daddy and asks/whines/begs for a new one. It's much easier to spend someone else's money. Certainly many of those parents will say 'No, I just bought you that game', but many of them will try to 'please' their kid by buying them virtually whatever they want.

I think, generally speaking, adult gamers are mostly in one of two camps: "get my money's worth", and "get my time's worth." [obviously there are exceptions, and some bleedover]. Some people would rather spend 40 bucks on an 80 hour game that will last a while, while others will spend that same 40 bucks on a game he can pick up and play for 30 minutes or so [like many sports games], or beat in 8-12 hours while being immersed in a 'cinematic experience' and either play again or look for something new. Especially when it's really so easy to get virtually any game for less, sometimes much less, than MSRP, not even considering the used market, which is light years ahead of what existed in the 16-bit era, so any 'professional gamer' probably only rarely pays full price for a game.

I do agree these longer, more cinematic, 'prettier' games definitely increase production costs. But for the most part, that is recouped with quantity. Your big selling titles, your GTA, your MGS, your FF, sell millions of copies, far more than virtually any title in the past did. And, of course, once they create a game, they use the knowledge they've learned created that game when creating the next. A lot of the cost is now going toward getting 'big names' into games; Tony Hawk, Jet Li, Pierce Brosnan, etc [thus increasing the 'cinematic effect' of gaming]. Game prices as a whole have remained relatively stable in price, while actually decreasing in 'relative' dollars--I remember paying 60 bucks for Shining Force 2 on the Genesis, and it could be argued the developers investment in, say, FFX was much greater than SF2. And the game industry is starting to imitate the DVD industry, with 'extras' and 'bonuses' and 'limited editions', which usually account for the more 'expensive' games.

I think long games are long, simply because they're in a genre that lends itself more toward being long--ie, RPGs. [I'm not counting things like sports games, because you can play those forever.] Platformers, action/adventure, things like that, they are perhaps longer than they used to be, but I don't think they're necessary considered 'long.' And many of the games that are 'long', say, GTA, are long in part because they allow the player a little more freedom in exploring, rather than going from point A to point B.
I would certainly be interested in shorter games, that are lower priced. I don't not see a movie because it's too short, but I might not see it in the theater because it's too expensive [ie, will my 'enjoyment factor' of this film, be worth the ~20 bucks it'll cost to go see it, when I could rent it for 'free' or buy/resell it later on?]

I don't buy many used games off Ebay, I haven't had much luck there recently, though I do buy used games from EB, and don't have a problem with that. If I can buy the same game, cheaper, I will try to do so. And I use my BBO free rental coupon to try to rent a lot of the 'shorter' games, rather than spending the cash.

Giantrobo: I agree with you about save points. I know there are various schools of thought on saving, but I lean toward the 'make it easy for the player to play' school. Many times I'll have 30-45 minutes to play, and want to play a certain game, but I can't because I know it will be much longer than that before I can save again. I think every game should allow you to save your progress, no later than every 45 minutes to an hour [based on regular playing.] There can be exceptions, such as the 100-level dungeon in Arc the Lad, but the player should somehow be warned about this. Things like this will go a long way toward making gaming even more mainstream and 'accessible,', both to adults, who have time limitations, and kids, whose 'screen time' should be limited anyway.