I just finished Lost Planet it took me a little over 3 hours to win, it took about 4 hours to win Gears of War about 4 to win rainbow six vegas. I'm not trying to say im a super gamer, but these games are really short. I can't help but feel like I'm paying $60 for half of a game, or evern a third. I understand that production costs are going up but come on... I'm guessing if Resident Evil 4 came out now it would be split up into 2-3 games. I guess this is just how the next gen is gonna be.

I agree with you if you compare price to longevity.. Maybe the other "1/2" or "1/3" of the game value is in online / multiplay?

But again.. I do agree that the games are way to quick.

Why in the world are you buying $60 games if you dislike the lack of replay value of said games?

Rent.

I wish I could beat Rainbow Six: Vegas in 4 hours Damn first level took me nearly an hour on its own.

But, short games are nothing new, look at Resident Evil 1 and 2, Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2, Super Mario 64, etc; All could be beat extremely quickly, even by lackluster gamers such as myself.

There is replay value and I like playing on line, I just wish the actual game went on a bit longer.

I'd say as a general rule of thumb, if you are buying a shooter type game, chances are, the 1 player mode isn't going to be lengthy. I guess its a genre flaw, but most of those games you've mentioned, the real selling point is the multiplayer options

How quickly could you beat Mario64? That game did not lack longevity in my opinion.

Bingo.

Difference between beating and completing, I didn't bother collecting all the stars as the levels just got boring after a while. But the game itself only took me about 5 or 6 hours.

Seems like a pretty good rate collecting around 70 stars in 6 hours. Though I don't remember how long that would take me. I'm more of a completist, especially for a Mario game.

I just passed the 80 hours mark in Final Fantasy XII (of course, I am doing alot of the optional quests but they are fun). I am not complaining

man I wish I was you... If i could play one game for 80 hours I'd be happy as a clam. Then again Im guessing I have put hundreds of hours into solitare or bejeweled.

Well RPGs usually last very long, especially Square ones. But if you don't like the genre, then that is no good. I hear the new Zelda is fairly long too.

Yeah and the early Resident Evil games rewarded you for beating them in under 2 hours by giving you the infinite rocket launcher. Take out all the cutscenes in MGS and you have another 2 hour game.

I hear people all the time saying that video games keep getting shorter. I don't think this is really true. Many NES and SNES games could be beaten quickly too. Super Mario Bros on the NES can be beaten in about 15 minutes!

The thing that I hate most is the current trend of ending games with "To be continued". Some games like Beyond Good & Evil do this, and there will probably never be a sequel so we have an unfinished storyline.

Rainbow Six: Vegas does the "To be continued" thing too, so it basically is half a game. At least there will most likely be another Rainbow Six game since Vegas was so popular.

I do agree with the above posters that say if you want a long game, you should play RPGs. If you want to completely kill your social life, get Oblivion.

It's great when a game has a lot of interesting content (like the GTA series or Okami), but if a shooter just has wave after wave of the same enemies in order to prolong length, that's not a good solution either IMO. Fortunately I suck at games and it takes me a long time to get through almost any game. I did beat GoW; even though that was a pretty short game, it had so much variety that it was a really enjoyable experience and I don't think anyone would really consider it a "half game".
For me, that description might apply to the Riddick game for the Xbox. I beat that in a matter of hours, but had a blast playing through it. I'd still describe that game as "the world's greatest game rental".

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I love short games. 10 hours is the sweet spot for me, but I'm fine with a game being shorter. Most people view a game being 40+ hours as a selling point, but to me it's a total turn off.

Even the incredibly awesome RE4 got a little tiresome towards the end. Length is the main reason why I skipped Okami and am leery about the newest Zelda & Oblivion.

This doesn't apply to racind or puzzle games though, as there is nothing to remember. They can be as long as they want.

Shenmue is the worst offender for this.

3 hours on Lost Planet? I've logged about 3 and I'm only on level 5. Then again, I'm looking for coins. Lost Planet seems to be designed like Dead Rising where the focus is on multiple play throughs to see & do everything. I don't have a problem with that when done properly. Dead Rising was immensely fun to go through multiple times. Hell, I think I've gone through that one about 7 times and I'm still 200 points shy of my 1000.

Do you try anything other than "easy?" Do any side missions or "fetch" quests? Sure they are an artificial way to lengthen a game, but that is the way it has always been done. That isn't new this gen.

Lastly, you are paying for half a game on all three of the titles you mention because the other half is multiplayer. If you want a full game experience pick out titles that don't offer/focus on multiplayer like the Metroid, Zelda or Resident Evil series.

10-15 hours is my sweet spot. I would go insane if every game was 40+ hours.

Beautiful games generally do not have long critical path times and are at the top of the price point.

Someone mentioned GTA, which is a great example. Tons of replayability with ok graphics at best.

Budgets, marketing, the developer deal all factor into the price you pay and what you're going to get. Maybe they could have squeezed out a few extra levels without the pretty snowstorms and intelligent AI.

Yeah, Im curious about the difficulty also....I usually select the default for most games. HOWEVER, you are paying for multiplayer with the games mentioned. That is half the cost there.

If you beat GoW on Insane difficulty (the hardest one), congrats!

How in the world did you beat Vegas in 4 hours? It took me well over an hour just to get to Vegas, and I didn't die that much.

If a game is 6-8 hours of fun I figure I got my money's worth. If there is an online element, that's just gravy.

My preference for game length varies by genre.

For something like Zelda, Final Fantasy and adventure/RPG games in general I like 40-60 hours as long as it's all new content and not stretched out with level grinding.

Action games, shooters/FPS etc. 10-20 hours tops is about as much as I can take as they start to get very repetitive very quickly in most cases. And being only a casual fan of these genre's I'd just give up if they were much longer and never finish them.

yeah I agree the 10-15 hour mark is good.

As for lost planet im playing on regular difficulty collecting coins whenever I find them.

Decker:

I agree with you 100% on Riddick possibly the best rental title ever, that and Panzer Dragoon Orta which two of us played and loved dearly.

XIII did it, too, and even had a 'last level' where you walk around a cruise ship and look at people until the "To Be continued" cutscene starts. Really lame.

The worst offender and ringleader of this whole mess: