Rant: Getting The Short End

[Ben]

Just out of curiosity, why isn't this article linked on the main page? Seems like now that there's new content you'd want to flaunt it.

That would just get peoples hopes up wouldn't it? As much as we revel in the inevitable disappointment of not providing regular content I think we'll save you all from it this time.

What am I saying! It's always been there... ¬¬

[Alex]

Am I the only one who LIKED Portal so much BECAUSE it was short?

The shortness of a game only bothers me if (a) the game is actually good

Did either of you actually read the article?

[Tanukitsune]

Did either of you actually read the article?

Yes, I'm just saying the main reason I liked was because it's short, maybe I should have chosen my words better?

[Nappi]

Yes I did.

The important part in that sentence was supposed to be:

...and ( there is potential there that the developers have left untapped.

For example, I think the length of the single player campaign in Company Of Heroes is just right, not too short and not too long. But if Relic had left all the defensive missions out of it (there are two of three if I remember correctly) I would probably complaining about how short it was, not so much because of the actual playtime but because of the missed opportunity (or something like that).

"Is that it? Just a bunch of attack missions?"

I didn't mean that developers should add shit to make a good game longer just because the gamers want more. Like already said, that would just make it a lot worse..

[Jake]

An excellent article by an excellent man.

[Tohoya]

I write a little bit about this in my editorial for game-spectrum.com.

http://game-spectrum.com/content/view/1232/67/

The thrust of it is, although I have sympathies with your concerns, I have an obligation to my readers. If someone picks up Heavenly Sword on my recommendation, then feels let down when the game comes to an end 5 hours later, I've failed at my job and violated the reader's trust. Evaluating games on their artistic merit is fine; if you want an in-depth view on some of that, read some of N'gai Croal's vs. mode blogs, or just about anything on GameSetWatch. But those critiques don't help me make purchasing decisions, which is the primary function of a review.

[DanJW]

I think the length should definately be noted for the benefit of the reader, but it should not normally affect a game's score.

[Erkki]

Quoted from the Mass Effect thread: http://idlethumbs.net/forums/showthread.php?p=84828#post84828

Just finished the game. Loved it :tup: bit too short though. Only took me 15 hours and I've done a bunch of side quests. 5 of those hours were spent on the elevators .

Really? So even the big massive* RPG-s are getting shorter these days? Some years ago getting 40 hours out of an RPG game was expected...

Not that I mind the trend for shorter games so much -- I also don't have as much time to play games as I used to.

I also liked the length of Portal and Episode 2, although I wouldn't have minded if they were longer either if that wouldn't have brought the quality down.

Well thankfully there are still games like GTA San Andreas, Oblivion, Gothic etc.

* or maybe I've just misinterpreted the title / advertising

[n0wak]

Really? So even the big massive* RPG-s are getting shorter these days? Some years ago getting 40 hours out of an RPG game was expected...

Not that I mind the trend for shorter games so much -- I also don't have as much time to play games as I used to.

Mass Effect is an interesting example. How long it takes is totally dependent on how you play/approach it. If you just rush through the thing ignoring the side-quests and all the other stuff in the universe then, yes, it's a relatively brief game (by RPG standards). If not then it takes a lot more time.