With the recent release of Homefront and its five hour campaign, gamers are bringing into question whether games are becoming too short to warrant to expensive price. We try to analyze why the industry has cut down on the length and added unnecessary features. Cheers!

| More
News story attached to:
Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    Red 9 Mar 18, 11
    You're damn right they're too short. I shouldn't be able to finish a game within the first day of purchase, and the longevity of a game shouldn't rely purely on directionless multiplayer.

    Games allow us to do things we can't do in real life. And there is more to this liberated reality than shooting other people in the head. Which is precisely why I love Team ICO's work.
  • 2
    Zero and X Mar 18, 11
    Yes, yes they are, end of.
  • 1
    Solid Snake 4Life Mar 18, 11
    And thats exactly the reason why the last game I bought new soon after release was Halo Reach. It's not that I cant spend 60 bucks every few weeks to buy a new game, it's that I most likely wont because the game likely wont be worth the investment.
  • 0
    Daweii Mar 19, 11
    Though to be honest games are longer than they used to me.. Take Doom for example most levels were completable in under 10 minutes and there were only like 7 of them. Super Mario was also extremely short.. Lots of games over history have been extremely short this isn't a new thing.
    • 0
      Xander756 Mar 19, 11
      LOL bull. The "par" times on old school FPS games are complete and utter BS. I just played through Duke 3D for the third time. Levels that took me 20-30 minutes to complete had par times of 4-5 minutes. I would say the whole campaign probably took me around 10 hours.
    • 0
      longview01 Mar 19, 11
      It all depends on the game, Zelda on the Snes is a longer game than any COD....

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