Length should not be affecting review scores

This is something I'm really not understanding.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's my belief that review scores - or a set of review scores - are designed to indicate the quality of the game. If this is indeed true, I fail to see how the actual length of a game can in any way impact the numerical scores. The only way this seems possible is if the game either feels rushed or dragged out, which would directly affect the quality of the game and have an adverse affect on the player's enjoyment. That much makes perfect sense. But how good a buy it is for the consumer does not impact the quality of the title.

Granted, a reviewer has a responsibility to the reader, so it should certainly be mentioned, like in the case of Heavenly Sword. But it seems to me that GameSpot's overall score was altered due to the game's short length, and unless that's due to the story feeling rushed or hastily slapped together, this shouldn't happen. We're judging quality, yes? So if I get done with a game, and it's not too long (I wasn't stuck doing trival/menial tasks, the developers didn't harp on one section of a story, there weren't any unnecessary cut-scenes, etc.), and it's not too short (a lot of loose ends in the story, not enough time spent in each area, clipped narrative, etc.), than the length is exactly appropriate. I believe the length of Heavenly Sword is appropriate.

Is it worth the $60 price tag for only 6 hours or so? Well, you can go back and play any chapter section at any time, and you do have a reason (collect more Glyphs to unlock more stuff), so it might be worth it for those who really enjoy it. But on the surface, most people would balk at the idea of a purchase, and that's definitely logical. Therefore, it should certainly be mentioned in any review. But it absolutely should not affect the score; it has no bearing on the game's quality. But maybe I'm missing something, here...although I can't see what it is.

This is something I'm really not understanding.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's my belief that review scores - or a set of review scores - are designed to indicate the quality of the game. If this is indeed true, I fail to see how the actual length of a game can in any way impact the numerical scores. The only way this seems possible is if the game either feels rushed or dragged out, which would directly affect the quality of the game and have an adverse affect on the player's enjoyment. That much makes perfect sense. But how good a buy it is for the consumer does not impact the quality of the title.

Granted, a reviewer has a responsibility to the reader, so it should certainly be mentioned, like in the case of Heavenly Sword. But it seems to me that GameSpot's overall score was altered due to the game's short length, and unless that's due to the story feeling rushed or hastily slapped together, this shouldn't happen. We're judging quality, yes? So if I get done with a game, and it's not too long (I wasn't stuck doing trival/menial tasks, the developers didn't harp on one section of a story, there weren't any unnecessary cut-scenes, etc.), and it's not too short (a lot of loose ends in the story, not enough time spent in each area, clipped narrative, etc.), than the length is exactly appropriate. I believe the length of Heavenly Sword is appropriate.

Is it worth the $60 price tag for only 6 hours or so? Well, you can go back and play any chapter section at any time, and you do have a reason (collect more Glyphs to unlock more stuff), so it might be worth it for those who really enjoy it. But on the surface, most people would balk at the idea of a purchase, and that's definitely logical. Therefore, it should certainly be mentioned in any review. But it absolutely should not affect the score; it has no bearing on the game's quality. But maybe I'm missing something, here...although I can't see what it is.

fathoms_basic

I agree with you somewhat, however $60 is too much to put out just a mediocre game (heavenly sword). I remember back in the good ol days when games cost about $30 (sonic for sega genesis) and even not to long ago on Playstation $40 (MGS, FFVII). And nowa they want to charge $60 for a 6hr game thats not even that great, or ill say, didnt live up to they hype (again, heavenly sword)....not trolling but thats ridiculous. I feel somewhat ripped off that i bought madden 08, its a good game but theres way too many flaws

Value certainly should factor into the score. The thing is value isn't just a factor of the length. How much fun it was to start with, how much replay value there is and such all go into it IMO. Having said that length certainly is a part of value and accordingly it may have impact on the score depending on other aspects of the game.

A game may be absolutely epic the first time through, but if you play it only once, then that's a problem.

That is a direct link to Value. If Gamespot had a value score still, they'd have shown the error in Heavenly Sword. I'm not paying 60 dollars for a 6 hour game that I might only play once through. If it had multiplayer, or a longer campaign or some crap, then sure, that's nice, but length directly correlates to value. It isn't all of value (replayability is important), but if its a short game with no replayability, then... well you don't get much bang for your buck.

GS's scores are meant to function, more or less, as indicators of purchase recommendations, and as such, game length can have an impact on the score, especially if the game is relatively shorter compared to most others of either the same genre, or otherwise, yet the pricepoint of the game is percieved to be on the high end of the scale, that can have an impact on the value of the product.

That's at least my impression on the matter.

Don't look for logic concerning game length. People are weird about it... they'll refuse to play an absolutely awesome game because it doesn't have X number of hours of gameplay the first time through, then rave about the latest 40-hour RPG that has 5 hours of content and 35 hours of pointless, tedious filler. All this attitude is going to do is make sure that every game that comes out is padded with filler to meet arbitrary length requirements. To use another media as an example:

"I demand that every movie I see be 3 hours long. Anything less than that is a rip-off, since it costs the same amount to get in the theater. I don't care how awesome the movie is, if it isn't 3 hours long, then it sucks!"

Don't look for logic concerning game length. People are weird about it... they'll refuse to play an absolutely awesome game because it doesn't have X number of hours of gameplay the first time through, then rave about the latest 40-hour RPG that has 5 hours of content and 35 hours of pointless, tedious filler. All this attitude is going to do is make sure that every game that comes out is padded with filler to meet arbitrary length requirements. To use another media as an example:

"I demand that every movie I see be 3 hours long. Anything less than that is a rip-off, since it costs the same amount to get in the theater. I don't care how awesome the movie is, if it isn't 3 hours long, then it sucks!"

Shifty_Pete

Yes, you should be looking for one's objective value. And if a game is a mere 5-6 hours in length, I personally could not justify paying current gen prices for such a title unless there was undeniable replay value.

Your movie example is a terrible analogy by the way.

No one is saying that, if it is an absolutly awesome game and it was short many would still play it, problem is HS is not an absolutly awesome game, maybe if it were longer and more fleshed out it could be. There are no arbitrary length requirements, basically if a lot of care is put into a game to make it interesting for 10 plus hours it will be of better quality because of it, you can do a lot more gameplay wise when you have more time. Its little wonder why so many of the best games have a good amount of length to them.

dvader654

Personally, I hate filler. HATE it. The last thing I want to do is waste my precious time doing something unfun and tedious between good bits of gameplay, just because people piss and moan if the game is less than a certain length--although I admit that what's tedious and what isn't is subjective. "Best" games are also subjective. I like plenty of short games, and INTENSELY dislike some long ones.

Marcus, I thought we had an agreement not to go quoting each other any more. Anyway, I could personally care less what you can justify purchasing.

The movie example was fine, because that kind of stupidity is exactly how I see people whining about games not being long enough. If you don't see the value, don't buy it or wait until its cheaper. Please DON'T demand that all games be padded out to meet your expectations of length.

I don't have a hard and fast rule regarding length, but I will say this:

If you release a six hour game in the middle of the busiest season of the year when I have literally dozens of titles planned for purchase, then that's your own damn fault. It's a buyer's market right now for gamers, and as such, I can afford to be more picky with my purchases.

I'm renting Heavenly Sword because of the time of year it hit during. If it had hit in the summer, I'd have probably bought it. My purchase decisions sometimes have to hinge on how much my wallet can handle, and releasing a short game in the middle of the busiest time of year for game releases is just asinine.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

No one is saying that, if it is an absolutly awesome game and it was short many would still play it, problem is HS is not an absolutly awesome game, maybe if it were longer and more fleshed out it could be. There are no arbitrary length requirements, basically if a lot of care is put into a game to make it interesting for 10 plus hours it will be of better quality because of it, you can do a lot more gameplay wise when you have more time. Its little wonder why so many of the best games have a good amount of length to them.

Shifty_Pete

Personally, I hate filler. HATE it. The last thing I want to do is waste my precious time doing something unfun and tedious between good bits of gameplay, just because people piss and moan if the game is less than a certain length--although I admit that what's tedious and what isn't is subjective. "Best" games are also subjective. I like plenty of short games, and INTENSELY dislike some long ones.

I agree with you. Lately the games I have been playingwere too long that they started to bore me. Games especially like Heavenly Sword where the story is the highlight of it shouldn't be lengthy because this will bore games and make them give it up before they see the ending not to mention that heavenly sword revolves around the story and presentation more than gameplay.

Marcus, I thought we had an agreement not to go quoting each other any more. Anyway, I could personally care less what you can justify purchasing.

The movie example was fine, because that kind of stupidity is exactly how I see people whining about games not being long enough. If you don't see the value, don't buy it or wait until its cheaper. Please DON'T demand that all games be padded out to meet your expectations of length.

Shifty_Pete

I don't recall agreeing to anything.:| I didn't realize someone disagreeing with you was so traumatizing of an experience. Seriously, drop the attitude. Disagreement with Shifty_Pete isn't a GS ToU violation last I checked.

We're talking about what a consumer values in regards to voting with their wallets and the customer is always right. Game length is apart of its merit whether you choose to recognize this simple undeniable fact or not.

Was Gears of War a short game, sure it was. So why did people pay up for it? Because it provided replay value that the consumers valued. If a game is going to be short in length, so be it, but the game had better be more than a one-dimensional experience to get my money.

what if the original super mario brothers shipped out with only 4 levels. even with 4 SUPERB levels, would that not merit a low score? i sure as hell think it would. you need to deliver a satisfying amount of good content.OneWingedAngeI

Well, I'd respect what's there, but it would definitely leave me wanting more.

I fully understand what a lot of you are saying, and I'm aware of the outside factors. Value is there for a reason in the GameSpot score, but I'm just wondering when and why this suddenly became an aspect of a critical entertainment review. I was always under the impression that we're supposed to be judging quality and nothing more, and in no way will the length impact the quality. Unless, like I said in the original post, the game's length is too long or too short for tangible reasons. As someone already said, they kept saying how short HS was in the review here, but they never said how it negatively impacted the experience. What exactly was the problem?

Someone else said that they wouldn't waste $60 on a 6-hour game during the start of the busiest time of the gaming year. I completely agree with that; personally, I wouldn't even own the game right now if Sony didn't send me the review copy. That being said, I WOULD have owned it at some point (probably when the price drops). Thing is, the overall package is fantastic and even singular in some aspects - most have agreed with me that the voice acting is quite possibly the best ever in gaming - and I want to have those games in my collection. I like to have the titles that aren't only fun for me, but also achieve on extraordinarily high levels. Now, HS doesn't achieve to those super high levels in the gameplay, but in terms of overall presentation, I think it does. So I'd want it.

And it makes sense to have a Value score, because every reviewer is writing the review for one purpose: to inform the reader, most likely so the reader can either decide upon or reject a purchase. So the Value category here is useful. But I will never agree that it should factor into the overall score of the game. It does not indicate quality, unless it hurts the production in some way. If the length seems exactly appropriate, it's not too short or too long. The story of HS fits very nicely in the time frame, and even though Kai's missions seemed tacked on, the purpose of those missions fit. This being the case, I don't think it's a bad thing, and just for the arbitrary reason of it being 6 hours, it gets pointed knocked off...? Of course it affects the value, but perhaps value should be entirely separate from the actual scoring. That way, the review does what it's supposed to do (indicate quality), and if the length IS a problem because of one reason or another, that factors into the gameplay score. Just my take.

what if the original super mario brothers shipped out with only 4 levels. even with 4 SUPERB levels, would that not merit a low score? i sure as hell think it would. you need to deliver a satisfying amount of good content.OneWingedAngeI

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]what if the original super mario brothers shipped out with only 4 levels. even with 4 SUPERB levels, would that not merit a low score? i sure as hell think it would. you need to deliver a satisfying amount of good content.yodariquo

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

I think what was said earlier about HS not being an entirely awesome game regardless of game length is valid...If GS thought the game was worthy of a 9 regardless of its length they would have gave it a 9, they gave Chronicles of Riddick a 9 and I finished that game in two sittings.HiResDes

I don't think the difference is that drastic; I doubt they docked HS a full point for the length. It doesn't deserve a 9, anyway. But I do believe that 8.5 is more fair, and I'd be willing to bet GS did knock around a half-point off...

And for the record, CoR is indeed the better game; my favorite of that year if it weren't for GTA: SA. But also, HS does most everything NON-gameplay-related better than CoR, which is kinda ironic. But it proves that gameplay is the most important factor, right?

length should totally go into a score.Autobon

For the expressed reason of..............?

length should totally go into a score.Autobon

Well, I'm convinced.

It's an issue from the standpoint of whether a game that can be finished in 6 hours (replayability bearing) is worth buying (especially dropping down upwards of $60 for it), IMHO. If it is that short, then one could get the full experience in a rental, instead of a purchase. Granted, the game could give a great experience, but the only way that it could be an issue in the case of GS's review, as far as I understand things, is that the score from GS isn't purely just an indicator a quality, but overall an indicator of whether the game is worth buying, in which case value comes into play, and length can be an issue in some cases.

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

Skylock00

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]

It's an issue from the standpoint of whether a game that can be finished in 6 hours (replayability bearing) is worth buying (especially dropping down upwards of $60 for it), IMHO. If it is that short, then one could get the full experience in a rental, instead of a purchase. Granted, the game could give a great experience, but the only way that it could be an issue in the case of GS's review, as far as I understand things, is that the score from GS isn't purely just an indicator a quality, but overall an indicator of whether the game is worth buying, in which case value comes into play, and length can be an issue in some cases.

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

CodeMunki

Since when? That's ALL it should be. Reviews are not designed around capitalism and consumerism; they're supposed to deal with the product in question. Outlying factors shouldn't be having an impact on an evaluation of the product's quality, although they CAN be mentioned in the review. That's my whole point.

[QUOTE="CodeMunki"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

It's an issue from the standpoint of whether a game that can be finished in 6 hours (replayability bearing) is worth buying (especially dropping down upwards of $60 for it), IMHO. If it is that short, then one could get the full experience in a rental, instead of a purchase. Granted, the game could give a great experience, but the only way that it could be an issue in the case of GS's review, as far as I understand things, is that the score from GS isn't purely just an indicator a quality, but overall an indicator of whether the game is worth buying, in which case value comes into play, and length can be an issue in some cases.

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

fathoms_basic

Since when? That's ALL it should be. Reviews are not designed around capitalism and consumerism; they're supposed to deal with the product in question. Outlying factors shouldn't be having an impact on an evaluation of the product's quality, although they CAN be mentioned in the review. That's my whole point.

I have to disagree with that. When reviewing any game, those factors must be taken into account. How many times have reviewers complained about cash-ins? There's certainly precedent for that. Here's something more recent.

If a game is a questionable purchase based on amount of content, then the score should be docked a few points. When dealing with the product in question, all facets must be addressed in a review. Why should game length be excluded from graphics, gameplay, and replay value? It doesn't make sense to exclude length and value of purchase from game reviews. We as consumers should be demanding more for our money, especially with new titles coming out at $60. Six hour adventures don't cut it anymore, not without damn good reasons to replay it.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="CodeMunki"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

It's an issue from the standpoint of whether a game that can be finished in 6 hours (replayability bearing) is worth buying (especially dropping down upwards of $60 for it), IMHO. If it is that short, then one could get the full experience in a rental, instead of a purchase. Granted, the game could give a great experience, but the only way that it could be an issue in the case of GS's review, as far as I understand things, is that the score from GS isn't purely just an indicator a quality, but overall an indicator of whether the game is worth buying, in which case value comes into play, and length can be an issue in some cases.

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

MarcusAntonius

Since when? That's ALL it should be. Reviews are not designed around capitalism and consumerism; they're supposed to deal with the product in question. Outlying factors shouldn't be having an impact on an evaluation of the product's quality, although they CAN be mentioned in the review. That's my whole point.

I have to disagree with that. When reviewing any game, those factors must be taken into account. How many times have reviewers complained about cash-ins? There's certainly precedent for that. Here's something more recent.

If a game is a questionable purchase based on amount of content, then the score should be docked a few points. When dealing with the product in question, all facets must be addressed in a review. Why should game length be excluded from graphics, gameplay, and replay value? It doesn't make sense to exclude length and value of purchase from game reviews. We as consumers should be demanding more for our money, especially with new titles coming out at $60. Six hour adventures don't cut it anymore, not without damn good reasons to replay it.

All of that is valid. But NONE of it has anything to do with a game's QUALITY. I'm a purist in that sense. The graphics, sound, and all that have a direct impact on the quality; all the components of a game come together to dictate that quality. Length is only a positive or a negative if it directly impacts the experience. If we finish the game, and the story and gameplay was neither too long or too short, it matters not at all how long it actually was; doesn't matter if it was 2 hours or 200 hours. I understand completely about getting bang for your buck, and as I've said multiple times before, it SHOULD be mentioned in reviews. In that way, I totally agree that the Value score is important.

But I repeat- it means nothing, NOTHING, in regards to the actual quality of the game (minus the preceding exception). And that's what reviews should be about: the evaluation and nothing more. Anything beyond that is compromising the manifest intent of the review. Whether or not we should buy it is a latent intent of a review. Important yes, but not the primary purpose. And I think that's the point.

what if the original super mario brothers shipped out with only 4 levels. even with 4 SUPERB levels, would that not merit a low score? i sure as hell think it would. you need to deliver a satisfying amount of good content.OneWingedAngeI

I beat original super marios bro in 4 hours.

It's certainly not a long game, and I also sucked at that game too.

Since when?fathoms_basic

I agree that the game's length is pretty much irrelevent to the game's quality if the length doesn't cause anything negative to the game's design, but in the case of GS's reviews, the added variable of 'value' to the score makes factors like the game's length and pricing important, given that the reviews here are as much about purchase recommendations as they are about pure quality of the product in and of itself.

I simply feel that your stance regarding the purpose of a review is different than GS's stance, as evidenced by this statement you made:

Whether or not we should buy it is a latent intent of a review. Important yes, but not the primary purpose. And I think that's the point.

From what I've heard, more or less, one of GS's main intents with their review scores and reviews is to act as a purchase recommendation to the reader, and is why 'value' is not only a factor mentioned and talked about in the review, but an aspect of the game that can either positively or negatively affect the score given different circumstances, like game length, features/modes, price, and so forth.

It's merely a difference in philosophies regarding the role/purpose of a review.

I would like to add the genre it falls into, back in the day games were shortbut thedifficulty increased the longevitity of the game. In this day games of this length fall in the "too short category" and from what I've seen there's not a high replay value for this game. People expect at least an 8 hours action adventure game, and that's pushing it. God of War was 8 hours long and though the game excel in most areas GS mentioned that lenght of the game was short and probably affected the score in a minimal way.

Personally, I feel that length has to be a factor in the overall rating of the game. If I'm going to buy it, I want to know if it will be worth it. I really enjoy the games that are long and have a lot of replayability (Morrowind por ejemplo), but I still enjoy games that are short that are still good games.

Know what I mean?

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="CodeMunki"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

It's an issue from the standpoint of whether a game that can be finished in 6 hours (replayability bearing) is worth buying (especially dropping down upwards of $60 for it), IMHO. If it is that short, then one could get the full experience in a rental, instead of a purchase. Granted, the game could give a great experience, but the only way that it could be an issue in the case of GS's review, as far as I understand things, is that the score from GS isn't purely just an indicator a quality, but overall an indicator of whether the game is worth buying, in which case value comes into play, and length can be an issue in some cases.

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

dvader654

Since when? That's ALL it should be. Reviews are not designed around capitalism and consumerism; they're supposed to deal with the product in question. Outlying factors shouldn't be having an impact on an evaluation of the product's quality, although they CAN be mentioned in the review. That's my whole point.

I have to disagree with that. When reviewing any game, those factors must be taken into account. How many times have reviewers complained about cash-ins? There's certainly precedent for that. Here's something more recent.

If a game is a questionable purchase based on amount of content, then the score should be docked a few points. When dealing with the product in question, all facets must be addressed in a review. Why should game length be excluded from graphics, gameplay, and replay value? It doesn't make sense to exclude length and value of purchase from game reviews. We as consumers should be demanding more for our money, especially with new titles coming out at $60. Six hour adventures don't cut it anymore, not without damn good reasons to replay it.

All of that is valid. But NONE of it has anything to do with a game's QUALITY. I'm a purist in that sense. The graphics, sound, and all that have a direct impact on the quality; all the components of a game come together to dictate that quality. Length is only a positive or a negative if it directly impacts the experience. If we finish the game, and the story and gameplay was neither too long or too short, it matters not at all how long it actually was; doesn't matter if it was 2 hours or 200 hours. I understand completely about getting bang for your buck, and as I've said multiple times before, it SHOULD be mentioned in reviews. In that way, I totally agree that the Value score is important.

But I repeat- it means nothing, NOTHING, in regards to the actual quality of the game (minus the preceding exception). And that's what reviews should be about: the evaluation and nothing more. Anything beyond that is compromising the manifest intent of the review. Whether or not we should buy it is a latent intent of a review. Important yes, but not the primary purpose. And I think that's the point.

I'm starting to understand what Fathoms is getting at. In my eyes and many others a game as short as HS may not be worth a buy, but that doesn't mean when you rent it or play it somehow that the quality of the game is diminished just cause you didn't find it worth the money to own it.

That's basically the long and short of it, yeah.

In regards to GS, it's always been that way, since "value" was a catagory in the old scoring system which contributed to the score, and I'm certain that it is still a factor in the current scoring approach.

I agree that the game's length is pretty much irrelevent to the game's quality if the length doesn't cause anything negative to the game's design, but in the case of GS's reviews, the added variable of 'value' to the score makes factors like the game's length and pricing important, given that the reviews here are as much about purchase recommendations as they are about pure quality of the product in and of itself.

I simply feel that your stance regarding the purpose of a review is different than GS's stance, as evidenced by this statement you made:

From what I've heard, more or less, one of GS's main intents with their review scores and reviews is to act as a purchase recommendation to the reader, and is why 'value' is not only a factor mentioned and talked about in the review, but an aspect of the game that can either positively or negatively affect the score given different circumstances, like game length, features/modes, price, and so forth.

It's merely a difference in philosophies regarding the role/purpose of a review.

Skylock00

I suppose all that makes sense. And considering that, I guess I'm just at odds with the GS review format...although I'm not even sure that's accurate. Like I've said, I think the Value category is important (we should have one at PSXE, IMO, but we do have a Replay score to give out), but I think Replay and Value are two different things...value indicates something outside the actual quality of the game. That's why I have a problem with it impacting the actual score.

But if GS intends to include that, then I understand what they're doing. I just don't agree with it, I guess.

Length is absolutely relevant in determining a game's value. We just need to look at it in a different light.

Right now, popular thinking classifies length as how long it takes to play through the game a single time, when in fact, it should be thought of as how much time you will spend with a game, total. Put it in that light, and there's no excuse for a full-price game not to land below the 30-60 hour range. If a game really is just six hours - one play through and you're done - there's absolutely no way it justifies a $40-60 price tag.