People seem to think these days that being able to beat a game in under 10 hours makes the game bad, at most worthy of a rental. Maybe I'm just old school, and remember when the only games around that took MORE than a few hours to beat were Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy.
I see nothing wrong with games being beatable in one or two sittings, in fact, with the exception of RPGs, I prefer it. As it is, there're too many games that I never finished beacause I didn't have time to finish them all. I think Heavenly Sword was a perfectly justified purchase. Beat it in about 7 hours. Every now and then, I'll stick it back in and try to collect more glyphs, or just relive the story and marvel at the depth of emotion in the expressions. I bought Assassin's Creed and loved it. Not sure how many hours I took, but I beat it in about 5 or 6 days. I did everything but find some of the flags (got about half of them) and kill a few templars. Sure, I could've rented the game, but I know I'll play it more.
People act like if a game can be beaten in the time allowed with a rental, it doesn't justify a purchase. Honestly, short of long (100+ hour) RPGs, and online multiplayer games, there is no game ever made that can't be beaten in a few days, so by that reason why would any game justify a purchase?
If you don't like a game enough to play it more than once, why bother playing it at all?
Log in to comment