Well isn't this interesting. Coming just after a blog exploring how people don't finish games, we now have an entry by Tae K. Kim to discuss the length of games and why they should be shorter. So do you want a more succinct package which is better for your buck, or do you prefer the long game which goes the mile?

In this week's Friday Editorial, we present an argument for the idea that games, especially those that feature a narrative story arc, need to be shorter, and that gamers need to stop making overall game length a priority when they make their purchasing decisions.

Before I begin, let me say that this isn’t going to be a jaded rant about how games need to be shorter because I have lots of interesting things going on in my life and I don’t want to be chained to my couch. The truth is there’s nothing I love more than getting lost in a terrific title that keeps me playing until my stomach’s about to cave in or my bladder’s about to burst.
| More
Additional sources:
Images about this story:
Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    Seeker X Nov 20, 10
    I was under the impression that most (at least console) games were pretty damn linear AND short.
  • 0
    Bale Fire Nov 20, 10
    Yeah, I'm going to say no. Games are damn short enough as it is, developers don't need encouragement. For $60 I expect quality and quantity, I shouldn't have to pick one over the other.

    To use the same analogy this article does. If I go into a restaurant and get a really delcious meal but it turns out to be less than a mouthful, does it really matter how good it was? I barely experienced anything, and I certainly wouldn't leave satisfied.
  • 1
    Hideo1 Nov 20, 10
    ...

    This article actually makes me angry. You want games to be shorter... you want video-games to come in, say what they need to say and know when to leave? I don't understand you. If this so that games aren't repetitive or...
    quote
    Many games also deliver an experience that is both long enough and good enough to satisfy your brain and your wallet; Assassin’s Creed and God of War are but two examples.
    Oh, can't be you just cited two of the most repetitive games ever. So it's because you feel more immersed when the things you do are on point? When you enter Liberty City and the first thing you do is put out some calls looking for the guy you're trying to kill? When you exit the Vault and the first thing you try to do is find the water chip? That's understandable.

    But games won't become more immersive if they're made shorter, they'll just leave you less satisfied. If there are games where you found yourself bored and waiting for the credits that doesn't say it needed to be shorter that just says the game itself needed to be better. Making games shorter would be (to continue the analogy) not including vegetables to make the illusion of fullness; sure what the customer's left with is a nice juicy steak and it might taste nice but regardless it isn't a full meal and it's a cheap way to make something bad seem like something good.
  • 0
    Zero and X Nov 20, 10
    I am sorry, but in an industry that tries to pass off Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2, a 4-5 hour game for $60, there is no way to justify wanting games to be even shorter. Games should be LONGER, NOT SHORTER. We have more powerful technology for more complicated games, why should expect games that are shorter!? I understand it depends on the genre and type of game, but we need to justify paying full price, and length is one of those justifications. I felt fulfilled playing Fallout: New Vegas because it was a long, worthwhile adventure, but even if it was the same game, but much shorter, it wouldn't have been worth the price because no matter how good the core game is, you can't justify people spending $60 on a 4-5 hour game! Multiplayer is a different story, but if it's single player only? That's ridiculous.
  • 0
    HoodedSolidSnake Nov 20, 10
    Some games are too short and other are too long. It is very hard to make games perfect. Games such as Red Dead Redemption and GTA IV are huge games with all the packs, online play, campaigns etc. Although despite not being able to complete them easily they are still two of the best games ever made.
  • 0
    tvandlust Nov 20, 10
    I guess I'll buck the trend and agree with this article. Historically speaking, we're paying the least amount for the most content than gamers ever have. Truthfully, it's probably not even a sustainable model at $60 anymore. I'm sure that's why we're seeing things like more preorder bonuses and DLC on the disc and multiplayer modes locked out for preowned copies and expensive special editions --all methods to wring more money out of the base product. It's probably also the reason why so many studios are closing. This gig is too expensive and yet gamers demand more (but don't want to PAY more). My parents paid, like, $80 for Genesis games when I was kid. Those can be wiped out in a half hour. We have it pretty good. I wouldn't mind shorter games if it meant a more sustainable model, not to mention games with less filler from a design standpoint. Too many games are just bloated with needless fluff and cut scenes.
  • 0
    yugiRULER Nov 21, 10
    What a Putz. Character length
  • 0
    Seproth Jan 7, 11
    They can be shorter if they're cheaper too. Has to be both.

    Personally I used to not want to buy a game that wouldn't give me around 20 hours. Not so much anymore, over half of them don't make 10 it seems now.

    It's just so odd when you can get something like Vanquish or Fear or Oblivion and they all cost the same, yet you get like 10 times the time with Oblivion.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.