The question has come into every gamers mind at some point while mulling over whether or not to purchase the latest title, is it long enough? For a while there seemed to be some benchmark for FPS games where 10-15 hours was seen as a good length and anything under that was not worth full price. Obviously price plays a huge factor as downloadable games (costing about $10) can be forgiven for being on the short side whereas a full priced retail title must meet a list of demands if it is to justify that hefty $90 price tag. Does it have multiplayer? How long is the single player campaign? Will I want to play it again?
This question came to my mind as I was playing through Vanquish for the second time. Though it was hyped considerably before its release, Vanquish failed to sell as well as Sega would have liked and even with the cliffhanger ending it seems that a sequel is not on the way. The biggest complaints I've heard from people who haven't played this game are that the single player campaign is too short and there's no multiplayer.
Both of these are true, there's no multiplayer and the single player campaign can be beaten in less than 8 hours. But what most people fail to realise is that there is more fun to be had in these 8 hours than some games that stretch out to 40. I no longer care for how long a game is, the main thing I care about is, does the playing time fit the style of game. Open world games can go on for 50+ hours but most of them never feel like they're dragging because they have enough content to pack in. Likewise, some FPS games can cram everything into 6 hours and cut out all the fat, leaving you with an incredible experience that doesn't outstay its welcome.
I've played some games that drag on for far too long and just pad the whole affair with filler to stretch the time out as far as they can. What's the point? These games would have left a far greater lasting impression if they had cut the filler, halved the time and given me a more action packed experience without losing a thing. Obviously some games like a bit of downtime between the action scenes and that's fine, what I'm talking about is mowing down wave after wave of the same enemies with no trouble at all, then looking at your watch and wondering how much longer you'll have to put up with this repetition.
One offender is Darksiders, a fun (albeit filled with plagiarism) game that could have been even better had it been alot shorter. It runs out of tricks pretty quickly and every time it throws a new toy at you, you must grind it until there's no more fun to be gotten out of it. Darksiders isn't a bad game, but it didn't need to be 25 hours long. Had the game been shorter I probably would have come away with fonder memories, but as it stands it's a fun game that I don't want to play through again because of how long it is.
Red Dead Redemption on the otherhand gave me a good 40 hours of enjoyment and I loved every minute of it. Why? Because the run-time suits the mood that the game is trying to convey. Everything in the old west would've been alot slower, riding from place to place, killing wild animals, doing tasks for strangers, it all fits in with the setting and story and immerses you. Had it been shorter I probably would've come away wanting more but as it stands it's the perfect length.
The worst offenders of late have been Child of Eden and Beautiful Katarmari, 2 games that ask full price, yet provide only about 3 hours of content each. Both games were interesting and fun at times, but for retail titles they sure don't pack enough content. They could've easily been downloadable titles as Eden feels more like a tech demo, and Katamari might as well have been a Nintendo 64 game. Don't get me wrong, both games have style and imagination but they simply didn't make me want to go back and spend anymore time on them.
Being 28 years old, and having a full time job, might influence this opinion a bit. I just don't have as much time to game as I used to so I tend to shy away from longer games unless they have a good reason to be that length. I too was one of those people that shunned games under 10 hours until I realised it didn't really matter. If a game is engrossing, I'm happy to spend weeks playing it, but I've just as good experiences playing short games as well.
It's a matter of personal taste and others might feel differently about the whole issue but when it comes down to it, a game is only as long as it needs to be. If you can entertain and delight in 6 hours, that's not a bad thing. If you need 40+ to tell your story, that's fine too. Just don't take 6 hours of content and stretch it to 40, you're only ruining what might have been a wonderful game.
This question came to my mind as I was playing through Vanquish for the second time. Though it was hyped considerably before its release, Vanquish failed to sell as well as Sega would have liked and even with the cliffhanger ending it seems that a sequel is not on the way. The biggest complaints I've heard from people who haven't played this game are that the single player campaign is too short and there's no multiplayer.
Both of these are true, there's no multiplayer and the single player campaign can be beaten in less than 8 hours. But what most people fail to realise is that there is more fun to be had in these 8 hours than some games that stretch out to 40. I no longer care for how long a game is, the main thing I care about is, does the playing time fit the style of game. Open world games can go on for 50+ hours but most of them never feel like they're dragging because they have enough content to pack in. Likewise, some FPS games can cram everything into 6 hours and cut out all the fat, leaving you with an incredible experience that doesn't outstay its welcome.
I've played some games that drag on for far too long and just pad the whole affair with filler to stretch the time out as far as they can. What's the point? These games would have left a far greater lasting impression if they had cut the filler, halved the time and given me a more action packed experience without losing a thing. Obviously some games like a bit of downtime between the action scenes and that's fine, what I'm talking about is mowing down wave after wave of the same enemies with no trouble at all, then looking at your watch and wondering how much longer you'll have to put up with this repetition.
One offender is Darksiders, a fun (albeit filled with plagiarism) game that could have been even better had it been alot shorter. It runs out of tricks pretty quickly and every time it throws a new toy at you, you must grind it until there's no more fun to be gotten out of it. Darksiders isn't a bad game, but it didn't need to be 25 hours long. Had the game been shorter I probably would have come away with fonder memories, but as it stands it's a fun game that I don't want to play through again because of how long it is.
Red Dead Redemption on the otherhand gave me a good 40 hours of enjoyment and I loved every minute of it. Why? Because the run-time suits the mood that the game is trying to convey. Everything in the old west would've been alot slower, riding from place to place, killing wild animals, doing tasks for strangers, it all fits in with the setting and story and immerses you. Had it been shorter I probably would've come away wanting more but as it stands it's the perfect length.
The worst offenders of late have been Child of Eden and Beautiful Katarmari, 2 games that ask full price, yet provide only about 3 hours of content each. Both games were interesting and fun at times, but for retail titles they sure don't pack enough content. They could've easily been downloadable titles as Eden feels more like a tech demo, and Katamari might as well have been a Nintendo 64 game. Don't get me wrong, both games have style and imagination but they simply didn't make me want to go back and spend anymore time on them.
Being 28 years old, and having a full time job, might influence this opinion a bit. I just don't have as much time to game as I used to so I tend to shy away from longer games unless they have a good reason to be that length. I too was one of those people that shunned games under 10 hours until I realised it didn't really matter. If a game is engrossing, I'm happy to spend weeks playing it, but I've just as good experiences playing short games as well.
It's a matter of personal taste and others might feel differently about the whole issue but when it comes down to it, a game is only as long as it needs to be. If you can entertain and delight in 6 hours, that's not a bad thing. If you need 40+ to tell your story, that's fine too. Just don't take 6 hours of content and stretch it to 40, you're only ruining what might have been a wonderful game.
0 comments:
Post a Comment