Length should not be affecting review scores

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.fathoms_basic

Again, I fully understand what you are saying, and yes, you are correct in saying that length, if the pacing and design is cohesive for that length, should be irrelevent to the quality of the game, so long as the length of the game doesn't create poor design elements, either in adding filler, or otherwise.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]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.Skylock00

Again, I fully understand what you are saying, and yes, you are correct in saying that length, if the pacing and design is cohesive for that length, should be irrelevent to the quality of the game, so long as the length of the game doesn't create poor design elements, either in adding filler, or otherwise.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. But I'm glad for the good replies in the thread, because I wasn't really sure what people would say... I think we all understand one another, but it was kinda hard for me to get my specific point across because I agreed with what everyone said. I just had a different take on it. :)

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.

DarkCatalyst

Well, I'll just have to completely disagree with that, outside of the subject in this thread.

What something is worth is hardly a universal fact. It's very possible someone could get to the end of HS and be completely and totally satisfied; not even regretting, but actually relishing his/her purchase. You can't say that would never happen, and you should never force developers to make games longer just because the price of the game is $60. That is crucially flawed thinking, and one that would only lead to unnecessary length, which in turn would adversely affect games. Then length really would be a problem, only in reverse.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in rewarding achievement, accomplishment, and quality. I give my money to developers who not only entertain but also impress me. I own several very short games that I paid the full sticker price for, and I never regretted a penny of that purchase. I own them because they did something special; something I'd rarely find in any other game, or in some cases, something I'd never find in another game. I believe HS has the finest voice acting in game history, and for that reason alone I believe it's worthy of being in my collection. That's a landmark achievement, which should be rewarded. Is it worth $60? No, not by itself, but the entire package is just vibrant with flash and panache. It's a presentation that is not often topped in the game world. I deem that worthy of recognition, and many others should, too.

Perhaps it's not worth $60 to everyone, but it is worth $60 to someone. I guarantee you that. And even if it's not, to completely dismiss a game due to its length : price ratio is downright absurd. At that point, you only care 100% about the money, and not a whit about the game itself.

I don't think length should be included in a review score either... I cringe every-time a reviews "cons" include "the game is too short". A game just needs to be as long as it needs to be. It's a good thing (usually) for a game to leave you wanting more... must mean you liked it if you want more.

I haven't played HS yet, though I plan too. But for games like God of War, Metal Gear Solid, Halo, and so on, the lengths were perfect in my opinion. Every single one of those games left me wanting more, but they also seemed complete. Heavenly Sword, from what I've seen/heard, is supposedly like a movie. I'm fine with games like that... in fact, I was fine with Strangleholds length, because it felt like an action movie, and that it shouldn't have been dragged on. As long as Heavenly Sword has a sense of accomplishment after finishing it, doesn't feel rushed, and ties up all loose ends (unless there will be a sequel, in which case, it needs to leave some things open), Ill probably be satisfied with the length.

[QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"]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.fathoms_basic

Well, I'll just have to completely disagree with that, outside of the subject in this thread.

What something is worth is hardly a universal fact. It's very possible someone could get to the end of HS and be completely and totally satisfied; not even regretting, but actually relishing his/her purchase. You can't say that would never happen, and you should never force developers to make games longer just because the price of the game is $60. That is crucially flawed thinking, and one that would only lead to unnecessary length, which in turn would adversely affect games. Then length really would be a problem, only in reverse.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in rewarding achievement, accomplishment, and quality. I give my money to developers who not only entertain but also impress me. I own several very short games that I paid the full sticker price for, and I never regretted a penny of that purchase. I own them because they did something special; something I'd rarely find in any other game, or in some cases, something I'd never find in another game. I believe HS has the finest voice acting in game history, and for that reason alone I believe it's worthy of being in my collection. That's a landmark achievement, which should be rewarded. Is it worth $60? No, not by itself, but the entire package is just vibrant with flash and panache. It's a presentation that is not often topped in the game world. I deem that worthy of recognition, and many others should, too.

Perhaps it's not worth $60 to everyone, but it is worth $60 to someone. I guarantee you that. And even if it's not, to completely dismiss a game due to its length : price ratio is downright absurd. At that point, you only care 100% about the money, and not a whit about the game itself.

I care about the money because I have limited funds, and want to maximize what I do with them. $10/hour for entertainment is completely out of the question. That's more than I make! I wouldn't risk that for something I might not even like, especially when I can pick up a fighting game or a good RPG that I know I'll like, and pay less than a dollar an hour to be entertained.

As for Heavenly Sword, if you like it that much, and it's not so long that it's any kind of huge time commitment to replay, then undoubtedly you'll go back to it. That's when you add a few more of those six-hour runs to the equation. Depending on how much there is to unlock, it sounds like you're dealing with more of a 24-30 hour game at that point. Still a bit meager at $60, but acceptable.

It's a good thing (usually) for a game to leave you wanting more... must mean you liked it if you want more.instantdeath999

Just so other people can start emoing about rehash when you finally get more. Or the developer gives you more in name only in order to avoid said emoing.

I think thats this is truly a matter of the reviewers digression. If you play through a game then its over in one sitting that will give you some disappointment especially if it was really fun. If that happens then yes it does deserve to be docked since it did disappoint in one area. The question is how much does this disappoint the reviewer.

Just use extremes here. If the game only takes 15 minutes to complete but it has the best graphics of all time, the best sound, truly inventive gameplay and offers tons of new inspirational elements how well do you think it would score. If it cost 60 bucks nobody would buy it since 60 bucks for 15 minutes of entertainment is just sad so it would score very low.

So if a game that is very short, say 4 -6 hours maybe it deserves to be docked a bit. Nothing crazy but maybe a 0.5 off. But like I said before only if the length did bother the reviewer.

Length should affect the score because without it, a gamer can spendidiculus amounts of money for somthing that only lasts a day, Even ifthe game has great replay value, how long can you enjoy the game if you keep beating it over and over, short games are good, but they would be way better if they lasted longer, I beatKH 2 in two days, great game, but too short... In my opinion it was worth the money, but I was still left feeling dissapointed...

My only problem with GSs reviews is their inconsistancy. If its truely a buyers guide, they should have been more harsh on games ever since the price went up 10 bucks. Gears is a prime example as well as Perfect dark. Theorhetically, Gears would have been even higher than 9.6 if it was 10 cheaper. Ya...i dont think so. Same with PD0. You might think im being to anal, but GS periodically likes to be really specific, its just inconsistent. (HS)F1Lengend

On the flip side, it is unreasonable to expect GS to go back and measure up every intra-genre game review, with every intimate detail just for the sake of consistency, especially when said genre is reviewed by several different writers. Working under such conditions would needlessly complicate game reviews by setting a ridiculous standard that would be near impossible to abide by.

You think GS reviews are late to press now? Just wait until they try to shoot for "consistency."

Even before comming into this, How do I know its about PS3 and Heavenly Sword?

Lenght is part of Value, Just like Replay and everything else. How about Shadowrun? Or Motorstorm? Or Warhawks? Not enough content maybe? Same as giving a game which is extremely short, no really worthwhile replay value. Why shouldn't games be punished for it? You have to shell out 60bucks for it. If you only get 5hours of play out of it. Well whoses fault is that now?Okay then but if you want it like that, I guess Shadowrun should only be counted for what it has, not everything it is missing