Short Games, a problem?

[ShadowDancer]

I know this discussion could become quite 2 dimensional..

But..I often read how people like longer games 20+ which i don't get.
I loved Twilight Princess and I took me 90+ hours to finish it.

But in all honestly, i like 6-10 hour games. Stuff like Viewtiful Joe, ICO, Tomb raider Legend..all 6-8 hour games (first play-through)

The first two games i intend to play on the ps3 are uncharted and heavenly sword..both supposed to be short games.

Maybe its horses for course..mood dependent. But the more i think of it the more I would be looking to pick up shorter games.

I'm not the biggest RPG turn based fan although I love Zelda and have played both N64 titles and gamecube and Wii. (because they're action/adventure type)

Not entirely sure what I'm getting at..there is no right or wrong obviously.

Whats your preference...maybe it is just mood dependent.

[jamesy]

I think it really depends on the type of game. I can never seem to get through games that are very long. Same atmosphere, play mechanics etc just start to bore me after a while and it becomes a chore to finish them. Of course there are exceptions such as the shenmue series.
Also excellent choice with uncharted. 7 hours of classic action for me.

[ShadowDancer]

Thanks for the comment of uncharted. I've only started to look at the game this week. I am buying a PS3 for Haze, but not solely, I already have played a few games when I originally had one..back on topic...

Some people have the opinion that they feel cheated if the games too short. Surely if it has substance over length its worthwhile..i think you were saying that when you mentioned uncharted.

[jamesy]

Yea, definitely agree there. Uncharted for me just had the right mix of shootin, puzzles and vehicle sections. Defintely worth playin through again aswell. Even if it is short you can get more play-time out of it than other longer games solely by the fact that you can replay it on a harder difficulty and it's still an absolute joy.

I always think of racing games that have say only 3 tracks or a limited number anyway. I've always spent more playtime on these than others that have 15 tracks that aren't as well designed. Would mention sega rally here but it seems a little unfair to compare it as its a world beater.

In conclusion shorter games are often better paced/designed as far as i'm concerned. Not always tho, but there a lot of games that i've only ever made it half way through and just thought - why have i been doin the same thing over and over again?

[Skull Commander]

I'd rather play a tight 8 hour game than a padded out 80 hour epic any day of the week.

[noobish hat]

i like games that can be both. a medium length main game, but loads of extra **** sprinkled on top if you want to explore it. unlockables and secrets are king, in my book

[kernow]

shorter games make me want to replay them more, as long as its good to begin with.

[Adam Stone]

To me, it simply depends on the quality of the title and the type of game it is.

I like lengthy RPGs/Adventure titles... Most recently Jeanne of D'Ark on the PSP where i happily devoted hours on it, even once the main mission was complete i was hunting for other things to do to stretch out my play-time as i didn't want the experience to end. Such a beautifully presented, engrossing title with lovable characters and an excellently deep - yet simple - battle system. It was fun to play and very hard to put down. One of the PSP's finest imo and a perfect example of desiring a longer experience.

Alternatively, i like linear and short story driven games... Like Call of Duty 4, Resident Evil Remake, Metal Gear Solid, Eternal Darkness, ICO, etc etc. I find these compelling and as long as the overall experience is satisfying - something to remember - then it really doesnt matter how long or short it is.

[noobish hat]

what about the best examples of long and short games? surely the best 'short' game ever is metal gear solid, i believe one of the developers was able to complete it in an hour and a half. but there was so much incentive to play through it again and unlock things, see different endings and see all the stuff you missed the first time (policenauts posters, playstations, developer's ghosts etc). it was so well written, characterized and acted that you could extend the playtime by many hours just by listening to all the possible codec converesations. a perfect example of quality over quantity.

[MonkeyJuggleDX]

Personally, I prefer shorter games that are between 8-10 hours long, mainly due to the fact that I work nights and am usually busy weekends with seeing friends and doing overtime, so anything I can pick up and play for maybe half an hour to an hour is perfect for me.

Anything longer than that and it usually just sits there after being played for a while, just gathering dust.

However, when I was unemployed, I could play games however much I wanted. Now I guess I appreciate them more.

[J0e Musashi]

Ridge Racer is the world's greatest game, and possibly the world's shortest.

I am 40 hours into Okami though, despite not having the time to sink hours into games anymore...

IDGI.

[DeathAdder]

I'd rather play a tight 8 hour game than a padded out 80 hour epic any day of the week.

Agree with this. Take God of War PSP. A seven-hour belter with stunnig (for handheld) visuals and gameplay. Had it been longer it would prbably have been bog-standard action game like Prince of Persia.

I wouldn't want all games to be short, but I don't write a game off for its brevity.

[QualityChimp]

Hmmm...

The thought of endlessly grinding in WoW or FFXI puts me right off. It's like watching a soap or something - it never ends! I know that this appeals to some, but not me.

I actually feel cheated if a game is so long I don't finish it.

I thought CoD4 had a good mix where the achievements were all based on the single-player and encouraged replay (Veteran, Intel etc.) but they multiplayer has its own rewards and endless replayability.

I also guess it's dependant on your time/money. When I was unemployed/skint, FFVII was my best friend, but these days, the concept of 100%ing GTA seems a looooong way off!

I remember replaying MD Shadow Dancer over and over with no shurikens and such. A good game's a good game and doesn't need padding.

[Lyris]

Most of the time, I too prefer short games.

There is this "bigger=better" mentality which seems to be invading everything, even although it's not always true.

Look at films more example. Films are getting longer, but they are not getting any more enjoyable. That inevitably will lead to boredom, how can that be good?

Likewise, huge games are ones that I often don't finish and I feel cheated.

[AllYourBase]

I am getting fed up with how long modern games go on for. Even great games like Resident Evil 4 had a lot of unnecessary filler dragging completion time out closer to 20 hours. I would much rather a solid 10 hours of greatness. If I want longevity I will just play it again on a harder setting!

My mate spent 50 hours completing Twilight Princess he said. As much as I liked it I switched off at around the 20 hour mark. I would have to quit my job to get through all the games I wanted to!!